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: Public Decency Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Imperialists Union
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 2140
Description[?]:
| People have the right not to be subjected to such outright displys of nudity and indecency in public. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy on public nudity.
Old value:: There are no laws with regards to public nudity, it is allowed.
Current: Public nudity is illegal and prosecuted as a civil offence.
Proposed: Public nudity is illegal, but private nudist colonies and beaches are permitted.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:22:45, November 11, 2005 CET | From |  Liberty Party | To | Debating the Public Decency Act |
| Message | We oppose this state imposition of morality. Just because you find something distasteful is no reason to make it a crime. |
| Date | 19:33:15, November 12, 2005 CET | From | People's Equality Party Of Trigunia | To | Debating the Public Decency Act |
| Message | if I wanna show my dangly parts, than it is my right to show my dangly parts... |
| Date | 20:21:15, November 12, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Public Decency Act |
| Message | Much as most of the Liberty Party members would hate to see PEPOT's dangly bits, there is no convincing evidence that seeing PEPOT'S dangly bits would cause any actual harm (unless they emit gamma radiation or something), and so there cannot be a legitimate case for criminalising the display of PEPOT's (or anyone else's) dangly parts. |
| Date | 20:52:20, November 12, 2005 CET | From | Herut Orthodoxy | To | Debating the Public Decency Act |
| Message | Ahh, LP, the fallacy is exposed... 'State imposed morality' is done constantly, to act as if it were not is to ignore the body of law. What about animal cruelty? What if there are people who breed dogs to sever limbs of puppies and eat them in front of the whimpering puppies? These people own the dogs, own the land on which it happens, and are not hurting any human physically doing this. The dogs are the property of the human owner, but yet there are rules relating to what they can or cannot do. But lo and behold, most societies are morally offended by such behavior and have laws against it. The strawman relating to legislating morality plays no role, it is simply that you have a different level of moral outrage than some, but the level still is there since the idea of rights are a blend of ethical and moral consideration. Or, perhaps you're for the abuse and dismemberment of puppies. |
| Date | 02:56:28, November 13, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Public Decency Act |
| Message | Surely you are able to comprehend that dismembering a puppy causes an actual, tangible harm while being naked causes no such harm. Perhaps you wish to reconsider who is using the strawman fallacy. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 253 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 302 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In your Message Centre there is a really useful feature which allows you to subscribe to all of the bill debates in your nation. If you use that, then the "Watched Discussions" section will show you every time a new message has been posted on a bill. You can also subscribe to other pages you want to follow, such as your nation message-board, party organisations or bills outside your nation which you are interested in. |
| Random quote: "From my point of view, the killing of another, except in defense of human life, is archistic, authoritarian, and therefore, no anarchist can commit such deeds. It is the very opposite of what anarchism stands for." - Jo Labadie |