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: Civil Act

Details

Submitted by^[?]: Federal Republican Party (UCF)

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: May 2577

Description^[?]:

Amend the civil code by imposing some regulation.

Proposal^[?] to change Libel laws.

Old value:: The nation has no laws regarding libel.

Current: Individuals may sue over falsehoods and defamatory opinions printed on them.

Proposed: Individuals may sue over falsehoods and defamatory opinions printed on them.

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date	11:22:48, May 13, 2008 CET
From	National Thomasian Party
To	Debating the Civil Act
Message	This is a disgusting attack on personal freedom that we can never support.

Date	12:58:08, May 13, 2008 CET
From	Federal Republican Party (UCF)
To	Debating the Civil Act
Message	We would completely agree to civil unions between homosexuals, we just oppose mariage, which is between a man and a woman. Article 2 is to stop people from saying whatever they want (including falsehoods) about others, but we would agree to a compromise only illegalising falsehoods, not opinions.

Date	12:59:33, May 13, 2008 CET
From	Federal Republican Party (UCF)
To	Debating the Civil Act
Message	Article 1 is to avoid traumatizing children by puting them in an unnatural situation, so it is to protect our dear citizens, and I think we all want that.

Date	00:08:32, May 14, 2008 CET
From	Union Party
To	Debating the Civil Act
Message	We oppose numbers 1 and 3. On libel laws, we would only support "Individuals may sue over falsehoods printed on them." Defamatory opinions, we feel, should be protected free speech. Falsehoods on the other hand violate one's right to happiness.

Date	16:24:09, May 14, 2008 CET
From	Federal Republican Party (UCF)
To	Debating the Civil Act
Message	Defamatory opinions, we have no problem with, defamatory acts can violate an individual's right to happiness as much as falsehoods. If we droped number 1and and change number 2, would you be willing to compromise, in the interest of both our adult and minor citizens?

Date	16:24:57, May 14, 2008 CET
From	Federal Republican Party (UCF)
To	Debating the Civil Act
Message	Defamatory opinions, we have no problem with, defamatory acts can violate an individual's right to happiness as much as falsehoods. If we droped number 3 and changed number 2 (to what you see fit), would you be willing to compromise, in the interest of both our adult and minor citizens?

Date	16:46:10, May 14, 2008 CET
From	Federal Republican Party (UCF)
To	Debating the Civil Act
Message	Sorry about my first post, it was an error, the second one is the good one.

Date	16:47:12, May 14, 2008 CET
From	Federal Republican Party (UCF)
To	Debating the Civil Act
Message	First post meaning the one on may 14 at 16:24:57 CET

Date	23:13:19, May 14, 2008 CET
From	Mordusian Austrian Union
To	Debating the Civil Act
Message	We could support article two, but could not support 1 or 3.

Date	22:43:37, May 15, 2008 CET
From	Union Party
To	Debating the Civil Act
Message	The bill does not say defamatory acts, but defamatory opinions. Still no.

Date	23:12:20, May 15, 2008 CET
From	Mordusian Austrian Union
To	Debating the Civil Act
Message	Ah, okay. Misread that, thank you. Then no.

Vote

Seats

yes

Total Seats: 174

Total Seats: 246

abstain

Total Seats: 80

Random fact: For more information on Particracy's former colonial nations, check out http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6640

Random quote: "Liberalism is the transformation of mankind into cattle." - Friedrich Nietzsche

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 68