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: Orange Act 35b
Details
Submitted by[?]: Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX
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: June 2389
Description[?]:
| . |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding regulation of media content.
Old value:: There are laws against the publication of false information; everything else may be published freely.
Current: There are no content regulations; the media may publish anything, even proven falsehoods.
Proposed: There are no content regulations; the media may publish anything, even proven falsehoods.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 12:08:39, April 13, 2007 CET | From | Free Democrats | To | Debating the Orange Act 35b |
| Message | I'd hate to see an election campaign with that law: Senator Geraldine Cambridge kills children! -vote National Party Praetor Marie-Segolene Bayrou personally poisons your water! - vote Pantian Alliance God says vote BNP -Whigs, Liberals and Orange Party spawn of Satan says Pope! |
| Date | 02:48:57, April 14, 2007 CET | From |  Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Orange Act 35b |
| Message | The primary problem with the current law is how one defines what is a falsehood. For instance, I could claim that the Bible is clearly full of false information (Adam and Eve, for example, were not the first humans, nor was the universe created in six days, even for extremely large values of a day, etc) and therefore, the media could in no way claim that it is the truth. But what happens if I run a Christian newspaper? Does this mean I can't run articles about how evolution is, in the publisher's opinion, a load of crap? |
| Date | 03:19:24, April 14, 2007 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the Orange Act 35b |
| Message | Although I see the Whig's point, I see Liam's point too. I'll support this motion. |
| Date | 13:27:06, April 14, 2007 CET | From | Free Democrats | To | Debating the Orange Act 35b |
| Message | I see your point. I'll pretend there is some kind of block against negative advertising here and vote yes, albeit an extremely reluctant yes. I'll assume there is some kind of extra prvisions that aren't in the proposal. |
| Date | 21:11:31, April 14, 2007 CET | From | Baltusian Pantian Alliance | To | Debating the Orange Act 35b |
| Message | Whig Alliance secretly yearns for your mothers vagina- Vote Moniseur Moi's Pants |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 121 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 79 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: "Game mechanics comes first." For example, if a currently-enforced bill sets out one law, then a player cannot claim the government has set out a contradictory law. |
| Random quote: "Let's not forget that we belong to history, that history that men and women who fought before did, that history that men and women who are fighting now will do." - Tera Pisthis, former Selucian politician |