Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: February 5461
Next month in: 03:56:57
Server time: 20:03:02, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (5): ADM Drax | Archangel_1 | JWBa | R Drax | SocDemDundorfian | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: Progressive Reform Bill - Freedom Of Speech (ii)

Details

Submitted by[?]: Progressive Party

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: January 2130

Description[?]:

While we do not condone hate speech, we believe that freedom of speech is an inalienable right. Prohibition of hate speech does nothing to change the ideas that those who make such statements. Hate speech should be dealt with through debate and discussion. Inciting violence from hate speech will remain illegal and those espousing such views in the effort to incite violence will be punished harshly.

False information (most likely from April Fools' jokes) will need to come with a disclaimer near the article or before it is mentioned on television or radio.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date05:15:09, October 20, 2005 CET
FromCommonwealth Workers Army
ToDebating the Progressive Reform Bill - Freedom Of Speech (ii)
MessageThe AAP will support... under the proviso that materials carrying possibly 'false' information should be labelled as such. Simple disclaimers for individual articles, or generic disclaimers for the entire media-object would suffice.

Date05:20:05, October 20, 2005 CET
FromProgressive Party
ToDebating the Progressive Reform Bill - Freedom Of Speech (ii)
MessageWhile we do not condone hate speech, we believe that freedom of speech is an inalienable right. Prohibition of hate speech does nothing to change the ideas that those who make such statements. Hate speech should be dealt with through debate and discussion. Inciting violence from hate speech will remain illegal and those espousing such views in the effort to incite violence will be punished harshly.

Date13:59:25, October 20, 2005 CET
FromFront for State Prosperity
ToDebating the Progressive Reform Bill - Freedom Of Speech (ii)
MessageWe support this change.

Date20:11:30, October 20, 2005 CET
FromCommonwealth Workers Army
ToDebating the Progressive Reform Bill - Freedom Of Speech (ii)
MessageThe AAP agrees with the Progressive Party... people must have the right to express themselves. And, while it is fair to allow free-expression, it is ALSO fair to punish the those who incite violence and lawbreaking THROUGH free-expression.

Date17:16:54, October 21, 2005 CET
FromNationalist Party
ToDebating the Progressive Reform Bill - Freedom Of Speech (ii)
Messagewe support.

Date17:17:52, October 21, 2005 CET
FromNationalist Party
ToDebating the Progressive Reform Bill - Freedom Of Speech (ii)
MessageIf an officer urges his men on in a war, could that not be incitement to violence through hate speech?

Date18:57:17, October 21, 2005 CET
FromProgressive Party
ToDebating the Progressive Reform Bill - Freedom Of Speech (ii)
MessageAn officer in the military wouldn't be considered to be inciting violence through hate speech under this legislation. Wartime is a wholly separate matter.

Date19:19:53, October 21, 2005 CET
FromFront for State Prosperity
ToDebating the Progressive Reform Bill - Freedom Of Speech (ii)
MessageActually, we side with the AAP on this. Violence and hatred is bad for business.

Date20:52:16, October 21, 2005 CET
FromAM Radical Libertarian Party
ToDebating the Progressive Reform Bill - Freedom Of Speech (ii)
MessageWe feel this is a good start in the direction of true freedom of speach. Our citizens have the intelligence to discern true from false, hateful from loving, and good from bad. To prohibit any speach is restrictive on the free exchange of ideas, as well as offensive to the intelligence of our citizenry.

Date04:29:41, October 22, 2005 CET
FromProgressive Party
ToDebating the Progressive Reform Bill - Freedom Of Speech (ii)
Messagemoving to vote

Date04:35:49, October 22, 2005 CET
FromCommonwealth Workers Army
ToDebating the Progressive Reform Bill - Freedom Of Speech (ii)
MessageSo long as disclaimers are present (somewhere) for KNOWN falsehoods, and so long as the 'right' to free expression is tempered with punishment for malicious abuse of that 'right'... the AAP is more than happy to support.

Date16:36:56, October 22, 2005 CET
FromFront for State Prosperity
ToDebating the Progressive Reform Bill - Freedom Of Speech (ii)
MessageEh, if this is going to be universal, I'll not be the dissenter.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
       

Total Seats: 401

no

    Total Seats: 0

    abstain
     

    Total Seats: 99


    Random fact: Players consent to the reasonable and predictable consequences of the role-play they consent to. For example, players who role-play their characters as committing criminal offences should expect those characters to experience the predictable judicial consequences of that.

    Random quote: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." - Universal Declaration of Human Rights

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 73