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: Obscenity Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM)
Status[?]: passed
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: April 2374
Description[?]:
| Law on public conduct. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Displays of public affection and obscenity laws.
Old value:: Local governments may regulate laws on public acts of affection and obscenity.
Current: There are no laws regarding obscene public acts.
Proposed: Sexual intercourse is illegal in public.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:09:23, March 13, 2007 CET | From | "Le Chaim" - Aesthetic Party | To | Debating the Obscenity Bill |
| Message | No support... |
| Date | 21:25:14, March 13, 2007 CET | From | United Forces of Decay | To | Debating the Obscenity Bill |
| Message | Why do you want to change this the way you propose? We would change it to "There are no laws regarding obscene public acts." We won't support it. |
| Date | 22:10:35, March 13, 2007 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Obscenity Bill |
| Message | We want to change it because we believe that anything should be allowed in public apart from full sexual intercourse. At the moment, local government could ban people from simply holding hands in public. This is outrageous. But we feel that we should not go far enough so as to allow sexual intercourse to take place in broad daylight in the middle of the street. |
| Date | 22:17:37, March 13, 2007 CET | From | Christian Democratic Alternative | To | Debating the Obscenity Bill |
| Message | It has been quite some time since RIR tabled a decent proposal, but this is one of them. |
| Date | 22:33:55, March 13, 2007 CET | From | United Forces of Decay | To | Debating the Obscenity Bill |
| Message | ... It's a step in the right direction though. We'll think about it again. |
| Date | 18:40:19, March 14, 2007 CET | From | Conservative Union Party | To | Debating the Obscenity Bill |
| Message | A fine idea. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 107 | ||||||
| no | Total Seats: 18 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In cases where a party has no seat, the default presumption should be that the party is able to contribute to debates in the legislature due to one of its members winning a seat at a by-election. However, players may collectively improvise arrangements of their own to provide a satisfying explanation for how parties with no seats in the legislature can speak and vote there. |
| Random quote: "Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them so what good are they?" - Ammon Hennacy |