[GA, Failed] Freedom Of Expression For Organisations

---

The World Assembly,

Reaffirming the right of individuals to express themselves freely without fear of reprisal from the state,

Aware that protecting this right counts for little if governments are able to censor political parties, arts organisations, campaigns, civil rights groups, publishers, internet service providers, web hosts and other entities that are not individuals,

Believing that nations should, if they choose, be able to limit the influence of corporations, and of those organisations that seek to promote hatred,

Hereby,

1. Defines a legal person to be an entity other than an individual that has rights or obligations in law,
   
   
2. Mandates that member states shall extend to legal persons the same rights in regard to free expression as they afford individuals, save that they may impose reasonable restrictions on the free expression of legal persons in order to prevent
   • disproportionate influence on government by profit-making organisations and those acting under their direction, or on their behalf
   • incitement of hatred on the basis of race, nationality, immigration status, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, or gender reassignment
   • denial of historical acts of genocide
3. Reserves to member states the right to regulate advertising as they see fit, subject to the provisions of prior and unrepealed resolutions,
   
   
4. Clarifies that, for the purpose of this resolution, a reasonable restriction on free expression is one that does not limit expression in significantly more circumstances than is necessary to achieve its legitimate objective,
   
   
5. Emphasises that this resolution does not prevent the regulation of campaign finance or other donations to political organisations

.

Click to expand...

---

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!

Against. There's so much wrong with the phrase "reasonable restrictions on free speech," because it negates the purpose of the proposal, as nations can interpret that however they like.

Edit: Additionally, it is precisely speech that is politically incorrect, inconvenient, and disagreeable that must be protected.

For.

Against

Against.
This is another piece of legislation that starts by stating the importance of free speech/free expression, but then includes a grocery list of exceptions. The below section, in particular, is problematic:
"Mandates that member states shall extend to legal persons the same rights in regard to free expression as they afford individuals, save that they may impose reasonable restrictions on the free expression of legal persons in order to prevent
- disproportionate influence on government by profit-making organisations and those acting under their direction, or on their behalf"
(This ignores the numerous, independent nonprofit organizations that frequently lobby governments. The obvious example here would be an NRA type organization.)
"- incitement of hatred on the basis of race, nationality, immigration status, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, or gender reassignment"
(while I could support State suppression of direct calls to violence by influential persons against a marginalized group, I can not support the above. 'Incitement of hatred' is a meaningless, catch-all phrase-of-convenience that assumes a correlation between one person's speech and another's hatred. The precedent a limitation like this sets is a dangerous one, and it opens the door to further arbitrary limitations on free speech, based in the whim or ego of any given moment in society. As stated previously, this is simply the first slice in the death of free speech by 1000 cuts, and it's all a bit too fascistic for my taste.)
"- denial of historical acts of genocide"
(Why this and not a variety of other forms of speech? Is one person's denial of a genocide somehow changing the historic fact of it? No.
This is precisely what I'm talking about in the point above. Today it's this, tomorrow it's that, the next day it's something else. Who is making these decisions about what can and can not be said? Who defines what is a 'reasonable restriction'? What qualifies them to do so? Are we prepared to wake up one morning and find that we are all simply frogs in boiling water, with no idea how we got there, because it happened incrementally?)

Voting AGAINST

Against

Against

Against

Against

Against

I don't like the sound of free speech restriction "reasonable" not. I'm against this one.

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.