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: Regulation of Hate
Details
Submitted by[?]: Baltusian Neo Exsudo Party
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: February 2140
Description[?]:
| There must be some regulation |
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 laws against the publication of false information and hate speech.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 05:56:06, October 28, 2005 CET | From |  Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Regulation of Hate |
| Message | *Raises an eyebrow* Allow me to quote the BNEP: "We of the BNEP here by anounce a war apon the communist hord and all those who believe in it's ideals." "Liberal pansies." "We of the BNEP hate the ideal of the Communist hord and all those who believe in their pricipals." Note the word *hate* in the last line. No doubt there are many more examples but the three above would qualify as hate speech. See sometimes freedom works for both sides of politics... |
| Date | 06:39:15, October 28, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the Regulation of Hate |
| Message | Well we presume that hate would end when the law passes... In the meantime, the PCP encourages all citizens to rise up and slaugter all members of the left-wing subspecies... publication of hateful propaganda will commence shorty, informing the citizenry on how to more efficiently perpetuate the slaughter. Long Live Free Speech! |
| Date | 07:37:30, October 28, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Regulation of Hate |
| Message | But as soon as you act that out, you're guilty of murder. Its also highly likely that given your propaganda, the police will be able to effectively track you down, arresting you for attempted murder. There are other crimes one can be arrested for. Irrespective, hate speech is not the same as advocating violence. For instance, if you say "All Artanians are assholes", that's hate speech whereas if you say "Kill everyone with no regard for gender, race, religion, nationality or political leanings", thats ok. Doesnt make much sense. |
| Date | 22:04:52, October 29, 2005 CET | From | Revolutionary Socialist Alliance | To | Debating the Regulation of Hate |
| Message | This is fair enough I suppose. |
| Date | 04:15:25, October 30, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the Regulation of Hate |
| Message | Attempted murder? Hardly, unless thinking has become a crime and giving those thoughts expression is criminalized. Unless the government is far more repressive than we believed, the thought is not the deed. |
| Date | 04:25:34, October 30, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the Regulation of Hate |
| Message | And also, note that the PCP would never be so ... inept ... as to be openly associated with such unsuble and barbarous modes of treachery. The example was provided for illustrative purposes only. |
| Date | 05:05:15, October 30, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Regulation of Hate |
| Message | When I say "track you down", I mean when youre on the verge of the physical act of murdering someone, not as soon as youve gone "Oh, good idea!" |
| Date | 19:56:26, October 30, 2005 CET | From | Baltusian Neo Exsudo Party | To | Debating the Regulation of Hate |
| Message | Wait..... Doesn't hate speach encurage vilonce? if so Does Baltusia accept that it's people are able to activly preach hate therefor preaching violence against those whom the hate was preached about or against. There for would it not be best to restrict Hate speach inorder to protect our peoples. From the Curruption of Liberal pansies, whom would rather see them die. |
| Date | 20:18:52, October 30, 2005 CET | From | Baltusian Neo Exsudo Party | To | Debating the Regulation of Hate |
| Message | According to Baltusian Law calling people "Liberal Pnasies" is perfectly leagal according to: Resolution: Definintion of Hate Speech Description[?]: Hate speech is defined as extremely offensive personal insults and characterizations that are directed against an individual's or group's race, religion, ethnic origin, gender, or sexual preference, and which may incite violence, hatred, or discrimination. As such, this constitutes more than merely the fair airing of information or viewpoints. Which Passed. |
| Date | 00:28:05, October 31, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Regulation of Hate |
| Message | As I have shown and based on the definition provided, hate speech does not necessarily incite violence. It may also incite hatred and discrimination. So if you say "Black people should not be allowed to work! All employers should discriminate against them", then that's hate speech. No inciting of violence there. Regardless, as I have pointed out earlier, if it does incite violence then the perpetrators can be arrested based on their violent actions, rather than their violent words. I have no problem with you exercising your free speech rights in saying "liberal pansy" (other than making yourself look stupid by lashing out through petty insults instead of well constructed arguments), that's fine. However, if you pass this law, you no longer have the option to say that (OOC: well you shouldn't) as I would endeavour, and probably succeed, to change the definition to include politics and economics. The so-called "definition" of hate speech is not very good, hence our abstention. For one, it doesnt cover political leanings. So, for example, if the RSA loudly declares that the capitalist pig dogs should be killed in their sleep, this is not covered by your law because its directed at a political (or perhaps an economic group) group rather than a religion, race, ethnicitiy, etc. So I personally would not be basing any arguments on it. |
| Date | 14:36:03, November 08, 2005 CET | From | National Party of Baltusia | To | Debating the Regulation of Hate |
| Message | Could this be moved to vote sooner rather than later? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 50 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 133 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 150 |
| Random fact: There is a phpBB forum dedicated to Particracy. Please click the Forum link in the top game menu. Additions to the game, suggestions and discussion is held there so get involved. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "Since a politician never believes what he says, he is quite surprised to be taken at his word." Charles De Gaulle (1890 - 1970) |