We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Internet Regulation Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Democrats of Jakania
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: October 2369
Description[?]:
| Currently the law states that internet use is completly unregulated. We propose that the government can run checks to make sure nothing illegal is happening. I proposed this because of something I saw on the internet in real life. I really do not wish to share the details, lets just say it was pretty bad (I didnt really watch anything, but the description of it was bad) |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Internet regulations.
Old value:: The government has no position on who may use or what is published on the internet.
Current: The government allows anyone to use the internet but the police can run investigations concerning illegal activities conducted by using internet (child abuse, illegal filesharing, ...)
Proposed: The government allows anyone to use the internet but the police can run investigations concerning illegal activities conducted by using internet (child abuse, illegal filesharing, ...)
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:43:45, March 04, 2007 CET | From |  Scientific Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Internet Regulation Act |
| Message | Bah, free speech, fundamental right, yadda yadda. |
| Date | 22:51:03, March 04, 2007 CET | From | United Democrats of Jakania | To | Debating the Internet Regulation Act |
| Message | Yes but if something illegal is going on, what kind of person wouldnt want it to be stopped? If someone had made a video of themselves say killing someone and puts it on the internet, the government currently isnt allowed to find out where that person is, or something of that sort. And what if no one takes it upon themselves to go and report this? |
| Date | 23:00:43, March 04, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Internet Regulation Act |
| Message | We fully agree with the U.D.A. We approve of freedom of speech, but not when it hurts others. This bill won't rid the people of their freedom of speech over the internet, it will merely protect those who could be potentially threatened or harmed by it. What if someone continuously sends someone else threat messages about killing them? Does it make sense that the government shouldn't be allowed to help protect its citizen from a potential predator? The government's main duty is to protect and aid its citizens, especially when it is life-threatening. Nowhere does it say or does it cripple freedom of speech in this bill. It has no relation towards freedom of speech. |
| Date | 00:47:22, March 05, 2007 CET | From | Moderate Republican Party | To | Debating the Internet Regulation Act |
| Message | How can the S.L.P. and J.C.P. vote against this act? We believe it is the right of every citizen to be protected by the govenment, and this bill gives law enforcement the ability to prosecute sexual predators or other people who HARM society. |
| Date | 00:50:52, March 05, 2007 CET | From | United Democrats of Jakania | To | Debating the Internet Regulation Act |
| Message | Well the SLP stated why, but the JCP are facists |
| Date | 01:53:42, March 05, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Liberal Socialists | To | Debating the Internet Regulation Act |
| Message | We also oppose this act. The police can still use the internet as evidence with the current law, so in the example given by the UDA anything posted online would still be publically usable as evidence. What this act would change is that it would allow the government to request normally confidential data - it would allow the government access to things beyond the realms of regular citizens. And whether for an investigation or not we believe that the government should not have that kind of scope to invade people's private lives and their personal information. Like the SLP, I think we just concur that allowing the government to have extra powers over the internet is not good for our freedom of speech. |
| Date | 00:35:53, March 06, 2007 CET | From | United Democrats of Jakania | To | Debating the Internet Regulation Act |
| Message | The whole point of this is so the police are able to go and search for something illegal. Is free speach to be valued to the point where others can be hurt? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 139 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 341 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: If you want to leave Particracy, please inactivate yourself on your user page to save the moderation team some time. |
| Random quote: "Erotic politicians, that's what we are. We're interested in anything about revolt, disorder, chaos and activity that appears to have no meaning." Jim Morrison |