Repeal: Freedom of Expression

Uan-aa-Boa

This proposal by Imperium Anglorum is hurtling towards quorum and can be expected to reach voting soon.

General Assembly Resolution #30 “Freedom of Expression” (Category: Furtherment of Democracy; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Resolving that it is profoundly immoral to permit corporations and legal persons to lie to consumers,

Believing that society as a whole can have justifiable reasons to restrict expression for public safety and to prevent the consumption or publication of materials that would damage public health, social order, or needless antagonisation,

Seeing that society should have the ability to regulate adverts and their means of distribution, eg prohibiting tobacco advertisements from being shown on childrens' television channels or placing limits on where or what can be depicted in such advertising, and

Confident that there will be a scrambling of legislative efforts to replace this resolution with more appropriate legislation that permits society to protect itself, hereby:

Repeals GA c 30 "Freedom of Expression".

Below for reference is the text of the 9 year old resolution being targeted.

Assured that freedom of expression is an essential human right deserving of international protection;

Determined that no one should have to put their lives, families, liberty or property at risk for expressing honest dissent with, otherwise criticizing or even satirizing their leaders, governments, societies, churches or any other institutions of established power;

Chastened by the sacrifices already made by prisoners and victims of conscience throughout the world;

Nonetheless convinced that free expression does not extend to such abuses as defamation, incitements to disorder, or academic fraud;

Agreed that for purposes of this resolution defamation is defined as the use of knowingly false information, or the raising of such with reckless disregard for its truthfulness, in a deliberate attempt to impugn the character or reputation of any individual, group or organization, excepting government institutions or political leaders,

Be it therefore resolved that the World Assembly:

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

Requires member states to respect and uphold this right in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction;

Expects member states to enforce this right fairly and equitably in the application of national laws;

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials;

Forbids member states from abusing these restrictions in an effort to stifle free expression among law-abiding citizens.

Uan-aa-Boa

My first impression is that there's nothing very much wrong with the target resolution. It "affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal." I don't see why that prevents the government from regulating advertising or other corporate statements, which is the main thrust of the repeal.

Turbeaux

Uan-aa-Boa Yes, I would oppose a repeal after reading the resolution that has been in place.

Areulder

There is a replacement in the works. Here is a list of the forms of speech that will not be protected, with the more interesting ones highlighted

defamation, as defined in section 1a, (any exercise of expression which seeks to injure the reputation of another individual, group, or organisation,) [Note that there is no requirement for defamation to be untrue.]
plagiarism or academic dishonesty,
fraud, academic, corporate, or otherwise,
an attempt to incite civil disorder, chaos,or the violent overthrow of the state,
deliberate, malicious hate speech targeted at a group of individuals on the basis of such attributes as race, sex, disability, religion, or nationality,
the unauthorised leaking of classified governmental materials,
the unauthorised leaking of patient medical records and other highly sensitive information of a similar nature,
pornographic material,
advertisement for tobacco, drugs, or other harmful substances,
misleading advertisement,
other material whose existence poses a grave threat of causing physical harm to an individual,
material which poses a threat to health, safety, or good order,
other explicit, blatant, and morally reprehensible forms of expression,

Turbeaux

Areulder "Morally reprehensible" makes that a no-go for me. Who determines what is "morally reprehensible"?

Turbeaux

How can a resolution that has reached quorum be "in queue" if nothing else is currently being voted on?

Areulder

Resolutions go into queue the moment they reach quorum, but don't go to vote until the next update. So(assuming there's no other resolution in the queue) this one will go to update tonight.

Uan-aa-Boa

That replacement got shot down in flames on the forum and it has so many issues I don't think it's going to resurface. The repeal can go ahead without a replacement though. I'd be interested to hear from Ransium as he approved the repeal proposal.

Ransium

Sorry ya’ll I didn’t realize you guys are regularly putting up topics for votes. I’m busy IRL and my NS responsibilities can be overwhelming as is but I will try to participate in these regularly. Currently I don’t always only approve resolutions that I am in favor of, particularly in the GA. I think it’s hard enough to get a resolution to quorum and since I submit resolutions with some regularity myself I like to support other authors.

After reading the original, repeal, and arguments here I am voting against. I’ll check in 24 hours and make sure this is concensus of other voters.

Caracasus

From what I recall of my time in the WA, Imperum is a pretty staunch National Sovregnty supporter. I imagine that something in the origonal resolution itself was deemed to be somehow infringing nat sov beyond what they are happy with.

I can kind of see where IA is coming from with this, to the extent that I will likely abstain from voting. There could be an argument made that if a nation went down the whole "corporations are people" route, the lack of provision in the origonal resolution for health could make it hard for said govt. To stop Eckie-cola advertising sugary drinks on primetime kid's TV.
IA is also right that there will likely be a replacement drafted soon enough as it is a pretty obvious area for legislation.

I am unsure as to whether or not the loophole here justifies the repeal. So yes, I will be abstaining.

Uan-aa-Boa

Caracasus The corporate person aspect did occur to me, but the target resolution affirms the right of people to affirm their personal views. I think most people would understand that in the legal sense the pural of person is persons and that corporations, even as corporate persons, don't have personal views. Therefore I think it's reasonable to assume that when the resolution says people it means actual people.

The target is also pretty maximally nat sov friendly in that it affirms a core set of freedoms that must be allowed and leaves everything else to the discretion of the individual government. The repeal draft, in contrast, sets out to complete a list of everything that could be legally restricted, which to my thinking is far more intrusive. It's like saying "you can only do x" as opposed to "you can do anything except y."

Either way, this is almost certainly going to pass with big delegate support so the pressure will be on to ensure the eventual replacement is good. I honestly think UM's first attempt is dead in the water,

Turbeaux

Caracasus It is a bad resolution: "Confident that there will be a scrambling of legislative efforts to replace this resolution with more appropriate legislation that permits society to protect itself"
The text admits that there is no planned follow-up resolution!

Uan-aa-Boa

On a bit of an impulse I've submitted a legality challenge to this proposal. We'll see what happens.

Mount Seymour

Uan-aa-Boa On the persons vs. people grounds?

Uan-aa-Boa

Mount Seymour Yes, and also on the grounds that lying and advertising aren't expressing views in the protected categories. I've been slapped down by 2 of Gen Sec pretty much straight off. I guess I have to accept that Imperium Anglorum is both very influential and experienced enough to anticipate the way rulings will go,

Areulder

The issue is that there was already a ruling. It was wrong but that's how it is.

TheCypherNine

I don't understand why you would even join the WA if you are a Nat Sov supporter, seems kind of hypocritical. If you don't join the WA you can do whatever you want. The express purpose of the WA is to curb Nat Sov.

Uan-aa-Boa

TheCypherNine As I understand it, the NatSov position is that the WA should restrict itself to regulating genuinely international issues and upholding fundamental rights rather than micromanaging domestic matters.