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: Media reform
Details
Submitted by[?]: National Party (NP)
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: October 3905
Description[?]:
| A new approach to improve the relations between families and medias. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Radio stations.
Old value:: All radio stations are private.
Current: All radio stations are private.
Proposed: The government subsidises independent non-profit-making cooperatives for educational and informational purposes; other private non-subsidised radio stations are allowed.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Television stations.
Old value:: All television media are private.
Current: All television media are private.
Proposed: The government subsidises a national TV station for educational and informational purposes; other private non-subsidised TV stations are allowed.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding regulation of media content.
Old value:: There are no content regulations; the media may publish anything, even proven falsehoods.
Current: There are laws against the publication of false information, hate speech, and subversive anti-government material.
Proposed: There are laws against the publication of false information; everything else may be published freely.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Government regulation of the viewing of movies.
Old value:: The viewing of movies is not regulated by the government.
Current: Only government approved movies are allowed to be viewed.
Proposed: The government sets a range of standards (to be determined) and these apply to cinemas and private homes.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding sexually explicit material on broadcast television.
Old value:: Sexually explicit material is allowed, but violent or hard core pornography is banned.
Current: Sexually explicit material is not allowed, but nudity that is not sexually explicit is.
Proposed: Sexually explicit material is not allowed, but nudity that is not sexually explicit is.
Article 6
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding regulation of video games.
Old value:: The government does not regulate video games.
Current: The government does not maintain laws as to age limitation for purchasing video games, although it does require a content rating to be clearly displayed on the box.
Proposed: The government does not maintain laws as to age limitation for purchasing video games, although it does require a content rating to be clearly displayed on the box.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:30:41, September 08, 2015 CET | From | Demokrat Konservativen Partei (DKP) | To | Debating the Media reform |
| Message | Dear colleagues The elections will reset the vote for this law project, so we will not vote for it. However, we would like to say that we would be very puzzled to vote for or against this mainly because of article 3. At all times, those who are against liberty want to define their own truth and punish those who disagree with it. How would we enforce such a thing as an interdiction to lie? We fear this could, if applied harshly, endanger those having different ideas on what is the truth. We would also be against article 1 and 2, however, because we do not feel like those are necessary. They are an unwanted invasion of the government in the private life of our peoples. Signed by, Corinna Diefenthal, DKP's spokesperson on Education and Culture Siegmund Zieger, DKP's spokesperson on Justice |
| Date | 21:54:43, September 08, 2015 CET | From | National Party (NP) | To | Debating the Media reform |
| Message | The focus of Article 3 it's not to spread the government's view in every newspaper or television censoring what goes against his will, but it's just an amendment to erase all the news without any secure source. How can we permit to keep some journals only living on speculations based on nothing, or even worse doing opposition inserting false (Or half true and half false) declarations in their articles? In our opinion this is the real threat to democracy: lies, and it's not work of the government to say what is a lie or not, the neutral sources from all around the world have this duty. Talking about radio and television channels, we consider that many private stations are spreading year after year worse ideals of living, ideals who are watched by millions of families every day. The loss of many ancient values it's depressing for a great nation like ours. We aren't proposing to abolish those channels, all we want to do is to introduce new ones that will follow the common sense of decency and aren't planned for destroying the minds of many young people. That's it, not an obscure conspiracy to colonize the planet. This is our view and we aren't inclined to change any article, this time. To vote yes or no it's up to you, dear collegues; seeing you after the elections, and while we're at this, good luck! Pres. Marien E. Dreyer & Werner Achterop |
| Date | 12:46:46, September 09, 2015 CET | From | Zentrum | To | Debating the Media reform |
| Message | Honorable Members: Article 1 would see the introduction of subsidies to select elements of the media- what benefits would this actually bring the population? Whilst the Centre Party would support the introduction of a national radio organisation, subsidies to independent, otherwise private organisations can never be guaranteed to ensure quality. The Centre endorses Article 2. A national television station, given appropriate freedoms in content creation, can serve as a more impartial medium for television than more profit-motived initiatives. Article 3 is cause for concern- what qualifies as "false information"? Are punishments to be levied against perpetrators only if the information is proven false before publication? Are private citizens also included in these penalties, or only public media platforms? Too many questions, and subsequently too many legal ambiguities exist in this Article for it to be supported. Article 4 seems quite arbitrary. What reason is there for this change? Existing standards are appropriate- after all, anybody viewing television is far more likely to have sex in their lifetime than they are violence. Article 5 has the approval of the Centre. Consumers should be aware of the content of their purchases- making this change would encourage better market responses to consumer demand. Article 6 will never see the approval of the Centre if it regulates private home viewing. The government should stay out of the living room- no excuse will justify such a moral surveillance state. The Centre will vote no against this bill as long as Articles 6 and 3 remain as they are. They pose far too great a threat to civil liberties to ever justify passage. Strength from Diversity, Vine Fynn, First Executive of the Centre Congress |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 172 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 61 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 68 |
| Random fact: Real-life places should not be referenced in Particracy. |
| Random quote: "Politics: a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage." - Ambrose Bierce |