[GA, Passed] Protecting Free Expression [Complete]

[Sil Dorsett]

Protecting Free Expression
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant
Proposed by: United Massachusetts | Onsite Topic​

---

Asserting that the most fundamental liberty of sapient individuals, freedom of thought, is rendered toothless without protecting also the outward ability to express said thought,

Contending, therefore, that freedom of expression, it being the manifestation of free thought, also stands among the foremost human rights, entitled unto all sapient creatures from birth,

Concerned especially for political dissidents, whose calls for justice and change have been cracked down on by certain, more sinister regimes,

Noting, however, that there do exist legitimate reasons to curtail free expression in situations where it infringes on other rights, such as the freedom from fraud or defamation, or hinders the peace and good order necessary for the preservation of civil society,

Bemoaning the dictatorial tendencies of those nations who would seek to include harsh limits on peaceful dissent under the banner of legitimate regulation,

Yearning, therefore, to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the right of free expression and permitting member nations to enact rational and well-meaning restrictions thereon,

This most august General Assembly, in the name of asserting the most natural rights of sapient individuals:

1. Defines, for the sake of this resolution, the following terms:
   • "free expression" as the ability to outwardly demonstrate, articulate, or otherwise express a political, cultural, social, moral, religious, ideological or other belief without fear of state punishment or reprisal,
   • "defamation" as any exercise of expression which seeks to maliciously injure the reputation of another individual, group, or organisation, on the basis of false information, excluding satire and the critique of public servants in matters pertaining to their role,
2. Permits member nations to enact reasonable restrictions on peaceful free expression in those cases where the expression constitutes:
   • defamation, as defined in section 1b,
   • blatant and explicit pornographic material,
   • an incitement to violence or widespread lawlessness,
   • a threat to civilian or military health or safety,
   • perjury or any other threat to the functioning of judicial proceedings,
   • the leaking of classified information, or other information obtained in confidence, except where the information constitutes evidence of serious wrongdoing and disclosure thereof is clearly in the public interest,
   • an infringement on private or intellectual property rights,
   • a violation of prior, unrepealed international legislation,
   
   
3. Prohibits member states from hindering the right of individuals to free expression, excepting the restrictions established in section 2, and restrictions required to fulfill the mandates of WA legislation, or restrictions permitted in future, unrepealed WA legislation,
   
   
4. Permits member states to enact reasonable restrictions in educational settings in order to better advance the functionality, safety, and effectiveness of the learning environment, presuming said restrictions are the least restrictive means by which to advance that goal,
   
   
5. Clarifies that nothing hereinabove shall be interpreted as preventing member nations from reasonably regulating campaign finance,
   
   
6. Permits member states to enact reasonable restrictions on the consumption of expression for minors.

---

Voting Instructions:

• Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
• Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
• Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
• Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

Spoiler: Regional Vote

[wavote=the_north_pacific,ga]2018_07_29_protecting_free_expression[/wavote]

Spoiler: World Vote

[wavote=world,ga]2018_07_29_protecting_free_expression[/wavote]

 

[Sil Dorsett]

The current proposal seeks to replace the recently repealed WA#30, Freedom of Expression. However, where WA#30 was an elegant, comprehensive defense of individual civil liberties - which had one important omission - the current proposal puts a much greater emphasis on the rights of nations to limit free expression, than it does on protecting the rights of the individual. By trying to achieve too much, in a single piece of legislation, the author has introduced a variety of limitations to free expression which are somewhat arbitrary, vaguely defined, and, may in fact empower nations to unnecessarily limit civil rights to expression that were previously granted. The Ministry feels it would be more beneficial to have multiple resolutions address some of the complex issues like defamation and company advertising rather than a single proposal attempting to blanket the many facets of free expression.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against the proposal

 

[El Fiji Grande]

I very recently became involved in WA Affairs, and would have liked to have been able to propose several edits... see, I don't fully support this bill. Personally, I would have liked to have seen fewer (actually, zero) restrictions and limitations, though I understand that to make the proposal legal, it was made more general.

What I am concerned with is that while this proposal defines freedom of expression as a right, it directly contradicts itself by permitting member nations to restrict that right, whether those reasons be considered 'reasonable' or not. Saying "Freedom of expression is a right, but..." is another way of saying that it isn't a right. While you propose that freedom of expression is in principle among the foremost of human rights, in practice you find that 'reasonable' nations may impose limitations. While that might sound reasonable, it isn't.

To quote Mick Hume, "Like all meaningful liberties, free speech has to be a universal and indivisible right. Once you impose a 'but,' impose a condition, or attach a string, it ceases to be a right. Instead it becomes a concession to be rationed by someone in authority." He continues with "Those ubiquitous 'buts' don't just qualify a commitment to free speech, they crush it. To claim to believe in free speech, but... is akin to insisting that you believe in an Almighty God, but you don't think He's all that."

Ultimately, the question in my mind is whether or not this proposal advances human rights around the world... and yes, it does. While I would have liked it to have been more strongly worded, it does prohibit suppression of clearly political speech, which would reaffirm important individual liberties around the world. It allows nations such as my own to continue allowing all forms of speech and expression.

[strike]Hesitantly, I support this proposal. [/strike]

Bowloftoast has convinced me to change my vote to against.

 

[BMWSurfer]

While reviewing this proposal many things came to mind. Firstly, this has a lot of restrictions on free speech, which makes me mildly uncomfortable.

But for me what it really comes down to is my distrust of UM. UM has proven time and time again that we cannot trust him with anything, much less freedom of expression. Every sentence I read of this proposal makes me think of all the ways he can abuse it to advance his twisted agenda.

I am against for now.

However, I am open to any thoughts or opinions everyone else might have.

See: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=10170241&t=9181027

 

[St George]

To quote Mick Hume, "Like all meaningful liberties, free speech has to be a universal and indivisible right. Once you impose a 'but,' impose a condition, or attach a string, it ceases to be a right. Instead it becomes a concession to be rationed by someone in authority." He continues with "Those ubiquitous 'buts' don't just qualify a commitment to free speech, they crush it. To claim to believe in free speech, but... is akin to insisting that you believe in an Almighty God, but you don't think He's all that."

Mick Hume's position on this is kinda moronic, because following his logic, defamation, fraud, incitement to violence, hate speech etc etc all have to legal. Which is both dumb and dangerous.

 

[El Fiji Grande]

Mick Hume's position on this is kinda moronic, because following his logic, defamation, fraud, incitement to violence, hate speech etc etc all have to legal. Which is both dumb and dangerous.

I'm a free speech absolutist.

Edit: But let's not threadjack this.

 

[Sanjurika]

Hesitantly against? Probably subject to change.

 

[Loh]

This proposal made me raise an eyebrown, to be honest. While I don't mind supporting it, I'm with BMWSurfer here. I can't help but look at this proposal with some distrust.

For, until further notice

 

[Stoskavanya1]

Against.

I oppose the legislation because I believe the whole approach to the issue of free speech, an exclusive list of exemptions, is bad policy.

On one hand, as bowl was saying, you basically give a blank cheque to oppressive regimes to regulate free speech as much as they like within the defined categories; there is no mechanism (other than the word 'reasonable') to encourage member states limit themselves in this regard and simply utilize the most extreme degree of enforcement. A clause like 'an incitement to violence or widespread lawlessness' can be as trivial as the state wishes to interpret it, from chants to "fight for our rights" or to calls for civil disobedience, et alia.

On the other end, by virtue of having an exclusive list in the first place you prevent the regulation of any other kind of expression on any other subject. As IA has already shown, Holocaust denial? How about inciting to commit perjury? Can an electric company publish ads that encourage you to consume more electricity?

Speaking of such, what happen to commercial speech? Did we collectively decide that we don't feel like bothering to address the whole reason for the repeal of the first FoE?

It is my view, which I briefly commented on a couple days before with the Artistic Expression proposal, that if you want to prevent sinister regimes from cracking down on dissent you have to structure the proposal in such a way as to ban the state's illegitimate motive for curtailing free speech, not the content of the speech itself. Any other way is just arbitrary if you take it to its logical conclusion.

I have several other issues with the proposal that aren't necessarily deal-breakers, just annoying. 2.f allows the prevention of leaking classified information

except where the information constitutes evidence of serious wrongdoing and disclosure thereof is clearly in the public interest,

Is it really wise to prevent nations from criminalizing the act of the illegal leaking of documents if one can interpret that information as something as vague as being 'in the public interest'.

It's also odd that line 5 specifies campaign finance, but not electioneering in general. (Preventing last minute campaign ads? Preventing electioneering at polling places? Preventing public servants from expressing their political views?)

I'm sure I could continue this tirade but i'm sure you all get the point. Ultimately it comes down what one's goal is in the WA. Do we really have to settle on this? Am I approving this because I think this is the best way to protect freedom of expression, or am I approving this because its convenient? Maybe my standards are too high, but I believe you don't owe anyone your vote just because you think this is the best its going to get.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

UM and his allies have delivered proposals in the past that blatantly promoted a Catholic agenda, but the more I read into this, the more I think that is not the case here. While it's odd that a proposal protecting free expression also has so many exceptions, those exceptions are logical in that it allows governments to be able to do what governments should be doing and protect their citizens from genuine harm.

I have a feeling I'll be in the minority, but For.

Also, I know there's a lot of distrust regarding UM, but let's try to look objectively at the proposal.

 

[Siwale]

Alright, I’ll be the tiebreaker:

Voting FOR

 

[Bobberino]

Against.

 

[TlomzKrano]

For

 

[Pallaith]

There's more to object to here than who wrote it. Stoskavanya and Toast cover a lot of ground, I would have to say I essentially echo their sentiments.

Against

 

[Union of Caplis]

for

 

[Union of Caplis]

The proposal has great potential in leading to expanding the freedom of speech and allowing art to not be restricted. The issue is if member states do use some of the vague language to continue to restrict. Overall I am in support of the idea for this proposal.

 

[bowloftoast]

Against.
Free speech should be as much as unequivocal, with the exception of what restrictions to it fall within established law. There seem to be quite a few limitations listed here that perhaps shouldn't occur:
- blatant or explicit pornographic material
Why? If the author doesn't like porn, don't listen/watch/read. Stop trying to impose your values on others. Free expression is free expression.
- an incitement to violence or widespread lawlessness
So, if citizens are subject to an extremely oppressive regime, and peaceful means have failed to bring change, talk of an overthrow is immediately a criminal act. This plays directly into the hands of the regime.
- a threat to civilian or military health or safety
Same problem as above, especially in the case of military dictatorships
- the leaking of classified information, or other information obtained in confidence, except where the information constitutes evidence of serious wrongdoing and disclosure thereof is clearly in the public interest
Who defines 'serious'? The governments who have been suppressing the information to begin with? The notion of necessary classification of information is a particular absurdity. Governments are meant to represent and act on behalf of the populace, not operate secretly outside of public scrutiny. Just because it's common, doesn't mean it should be given a pass. Enabling government secrecy in any form is a bad idea.
- an infringement on private or intellectual property rights
A troubling can of worms in an era when corporations are attempting to copyright individual words and phrases as their property. Does it suddenly become a crime to sing someone else's song, or quote another's writings? No way this should just be casually shoehorned into this proposal without it being fully unpacked.

 

[El Fiji Grande]

Very good points, bowloftoast. I would hope that future legislation prevents those loopholes.

 

[Siwale]

The majority vote has shifted to Against and I have adjusted my vote accordingly.

 

[Wonderess]

I vote FOR this resolution. I feel there is an underlying counter prejudice underlying this discussion. Not all NS nations share in your liberal legalistic point of view. The resolution allows nations that have a legal moralistic view of law to function. This emphasis is on the common good of the whole and not just the disjointed good of the various individuals. It is a point of view worth respecting and this resolution allows that national model to function. I do hope we can keep from having these liberal legalistic values that I have heard from being forced on other nations just as you all fear the opposite.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Against

 

[Christian Democrats]

But for me what it really comes down to is my distrust of UM. UM has proven time and time again that we cannot trust him with anything, much less freedom of expression. Every sentence I read of this proposal makes me think of all the ways he can abuse it to advance his twisted agenda.

I'm with BMWSurfer here. I can't help but look at this proposal with some distrust.

The intolerance in this thread is disappointing but unfortunately not surprising.

UM and his allies have delivered proposals in the past that blatantly promoted a Catholic agenda

And what is wrong with "a Catholic agenda"?

Would you be equally skeptical of a "secular agenda," a "Jewish agenda," a "Muslim agenda," a "gay agenda," or any other kind of "agenda" in World Assembly politics?

 

[Sil Dorsett]

And what is wrong with "a Catholic agenda"?

"... but the more I read into this, the more I think that is not the case here." AKA, I'm letting UM skeptics know that they shouldn't be judging this resolution based on the past abortion war that went on that put a bad taste in people's mouths.

Feel free to PM or TG me if you want to discuss it further. Continuing this discussion would throw the thread off topic. We're supposed to be debating the merits of the proposal at hand.

 

[New Seaview Cove]

For

 

[St George]

UM and his allies have delivered proposals in the past that blatantly promoted a Catholic agenda

And what is wrong with "a Catholic agenda"?

Oh where to start. How about denying women bodily autonomy despite both scientific and biblical stances against abortion being bunk?

How about encouraging intolerance towards LGBT people across the world from Jamaica to Uganda?

How about covering up child abuse going back literally decades and probably hundreds of years across the entire world?

How about arguing against contraception and encouraging people not to use it which is literally the main cause of HIV's spread across Africa and most of the third world?

Should I continue? Or can we just agree that - irrelevant of whether other non-secular agendas are right or wrong (I happen to think most if not all are wrong) - a Catholic agenda, regardless of the benefits that Catholicism can sometimes bring, is a net negative for many of societies most vulnerable and at risk groups across much of the world?

 

[artiza]

Against

In my opinion, the protection of a right can not incorporate the regulation of its restrictions.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

FYI, United Massachusetts has responded to a lot of our commentary in a Dispatch.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1068719

 

[Syrixia]

To quote Mick Hume, "Like all meaningful liberties, free speech has to be a universal and indivisible right. Once you impose a 'but,' impose a condition, or attach a string, it ceases to be a right. Instead it becomes a concession to be rationed by someone in authority." He continues with "Those ubiquitous 'buts' don't just qualify a commitment to free speech, they crush it. To claim to believe in free speech, but... is akin to insisting that you believe in an Almighty God, but you don't think He's all that."

Mick Hume's position on this is kinda moronic, because following his logic, defamation, fraud, incitement to violence, hate speech etc etc all have to legal. Which is both dumb and dangerous.

Censorship of any form of speech, no matter how offensive, is leagues more dumb and dangerous. If Person A says something that Person B finds offensive, Person B needs to grow a pair and deal. That's all there is to it.

Anyways, against.

 

[Christian Democrats]

UM and his allies have delivered proposals in the past that blatantly promoted a Catholic agenda

And what is wrong with "a Catholic agenda"?

Oh where to start. How about denying women bodily autonomy despite both scientific and biblical stances against abortion being bunk?

The Bible does not speak directly to the issue of abortion, but the practice has been condemned by Christians since the first century (see, e.g., the Didache). Science informs the abortion debate, but it does not determine it. Ultimately, one has to make a moral judgment whether society ought to permit the termination of unborn children and, if so, at what times and under what circumstances.

How about encouraging intolerance towards LGBT people across the world from Jamaica to Uganda?

To the contrary, the Catechism of the Catholic Church calls for the elimination of "[e]very sign of unjust discrimination" against "men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies" (para. 2358). Also, neither Jamaica nor Uganda is a majority-Catholic nation. Jamaica is 2% Catholic, and Uganda is 39% Catholic.

How about covering up child abuse going back literally decades and probably hundreds of years across the entire world?

The sins of particular Catholics, which are condemnable, say nothing about the veracity of the Catholic religion. It is fallacious to attribute the wrongs of a member to the entire group.

How about arguing against contraception and encouraging people not to use it which is literally the main cause of HIV's spread across Africa and most of the third world?

The main causes of HIV are fornication, drug use, and subsequently maternal transmission.

Furthermore, in Africa, HIV tends to be most prevalent where Catholicism is least widespread.

Nation [c] HIV among people aged 15-49 [c] Catholicism [c]Swaziland[c]26%[c]20%[c]Botswana[c]23%[c]7%[c]Lesotho[c]23%[c]40%[c]South Africa[c]17%[c]7%[c]Zimbabwe[c]15%[c]7%

The African HIV crisis has been least bad in the Catholic countries, such as Equatorial Guinea (81% Catholic, 7% HIV), Burundi (62% Catholic, 1% HIV), and Gabon (50% Catholic, 4% HIV). Secularists, by and large, want to accommodate HIV rather than combat its root causes.

Should I continue? Or can we just agree that - irrelevant of whether other non-secular agendas are right or wrong (I happen to think most if not all are wrong) - a Catholic agenda, regardless of the benefits that Catholicism can sometimes bring, is a net negative for many of societies most vulnerable and at risk groups across much of the world?

Your "facts" are based more on ideology than an objective assessment of reality. Continue if you want.

 

[BMWSurfer]

After further review of this proposal I have come to a different decision than earlier. While there is a valid concern with allowing all the restrictions set forth in section 2, I believe these restrictions are reasonable.

Furthermore, I have seen over the last few days that the author is a reputable and decent person, even though they espouse views I do not necessarily agree with.

On a final, more moderation tone, lets not let this thread devolve into a political and moralistic argument. This is a thread created to discuss the proposal only.

Im changing my vote to For.

 

[Wilkshire]

Against

 

[Sil Dorsett]

Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.