Domnonia is interested in the idea of fair comment protections, which would fall under the Free Speech value in his Honourable Mister Delegates poll.
We have brought up this idea within another region, with little response(blamed either on ill-founded
ness or lack of activity in that particular region).
With some recent events in my RL country in mind, I've been mulling over whether or not a resolution that protects the rights not of speech, perse, but of commentary would be appropriate.
The idea itself would be to set out a few rules for what could be considered fair comment, ie: public interest, based on fact, obvious commentary. An unless clause would provide some allusion to malicious intent, where comment is made for an indirect or improper motive not connected with the purpose of said comment.
Who would this protect? The citizenry, yes. But more directly, it would protect journalists, satirists, and social commentators, critics, and cartoonists, from libel suits and censorship(whether that be imposed by the state or self).
What is the real world issue?
The issue of balance is raised here in the context of a “shock jock” radio talk show hosted by the appellant Rafe Mair, a well-known and sometimes controversial commentator on matters of public interest in British Columbia. The target of his “editorial” on October 25, 1999 was the respondent Kari Simpson, a widely known social activist. The context was public debate over the introduction of materials dealing with homosexuality into public schools. Mair and Simpson took opposing sides in the debate about whether the purpose of this initiative was to teach tolerance of homosexuality or to promote a homosexual lifestyle. Simpson was a leading public figure in the debate, and the trial judge found that she had a public reputation as a leader of those opposed to any positive portrayal of a gay lifestyle. The nub of Simpson’s complaint is the following portion of the Rafe Mair editorial broadcast on October 25, 1999:
Before Kari was on my colleague Bill Good’s show last Friday I listened to the tape of the parents’ meeting the night before where Kari harangued the crowd. It took me back to my childhood when with my parents we would listen to bigots who with increasing shrillness would harangue the crowds. For Kari’s homosexual one could easily substitute Jew. I could see Governor Wallace – in my mind’s eye I could see Governor Wallace of Alabama standing on the steps of a schoolhouse shouting to the crowds that no Negroes would get into Alabama schools as long as he was governor. It could have been blacks last Thursday night just as easily as gays. Now I’m not suggesting that Kari was proposing or supporting any kind of holocaust or violence but neither really – in the speeches, when you think about it and look back – neither did Hitler or Governor Wallace or [Orval Faubus] or Ross Barnett. They were simply declaring their hostility to a minority. Let the mob do as they wished.
The Supreme Court found in favour of Mair, reiterating the idea of 'Fair Comment'.
Now, is this something that could proceed before the World Assembly? Is this something that TNP would support? The WA/UN has dealt with Free Speech and such in the past, and this being an obvious extension of such principles, I see no reason why it would not do the WA justice.
Thoughts?
ps; wonderful to see the Delegate bring this discussion to fruition, as certainly all are aware of and concerned for the recent dry-spell afflicting our worldly body.
.
(Turns out the counter of votes counts the number of votes, not voters) To vote None, check off all 3 None options.
