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: Free Speech Act of 2149
Details
Submitted by[?]: National Imperial Hobrazian Front
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: December 2150
Description[?]:
| WHEREAS it is the right of individuals to be able to promote their ideas freely, the current legislation is somewhat restricting. One of the fundamental qualities of a free and democratic society is the inaliable liberty to openly talk about issues with which a person is concerned. As such, "hate speech" should be protected by Republic, so long as it is not overtly hostile or directly threatening. Although these ideas may be ignorant, it is ultimately up to our citizens to decide what is proper in conversational discourse in our civilized nation. |
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 and hate speech.
Current: There are no content regulations; the media may publish anything, even proven falsehoods.
Proposed: There are laws against the publication of false information; everything else may be published freely.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:37:48, December 02, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Free Speech Act of 2149 |
| Message | To be pedantic, but then that's why we're here, the law does not stop anyone from saying anything they want about any other group at any time. What the current law does is stop any hate speech being published, an important distinction we're sure you agree. Whilst someone being against a group, and saying so openly, should be supported in their right to do so, to then write it and/or attempt to incite others into hate against another group within the local or national media should not be supported. |
| Date | 03:14:30, December 03, 2005 CET | From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Free Speech Act of 2149 |
| Message | I can support this. I agree with the fact that it is up to our citizens to decide if hate speech is worth their time or coming to the conclusion that it is mainly worthless. There is also a fine line between hate speech and the freedom of expression that one segment of society disagrees with. I am pleased with the CSP for bringing this proposal back up for debate and hopefully this will pass. |
| Date | 17:18:13, December 04, 2005 CET | From | Deltarian Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Free Speech Act of 2149 |
| Message | Wont support, it's giving a right to create social tension. |
| Date | 19:26:43, December 04, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Free Speech Act of 2149 |
| Message | Between who? The ayes and nays? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 292 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 108 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: If you are likely to be logging in to Particracy with the same IP address as another player with an active account, please inform Moderation on the forum. Otherwise your account could be inactivated on suspicion of multi-accounting. |
| Random quote: "In politics, madame, you need two things: friends, but above all an enemy." - Brian Mulroney |