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: False and Hate Speech Ban Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers 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: November 4024
Description[?]:
| TBD |
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 laws against the publication of false information and hate speech.
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 | 11:19:38, May 04, 2016 CET | From | Party of Liberty | To | Debating the False and Hate Speech Ban Act |
| Message | We will not condone this as this is censorship of the press. You may not like what people say, however they should be free to say it. |
| Date | 11:23:17, May 04, 2016 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the False and Hate Speech Ban Act |
| Message | OOC: http://freespeechdebate.com/en/discuss/nineteen-arguments-for-hate-speech-bans-and-against-them/ |
| Date | 11:24:05, May 04, 2016 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the False and Hate Speech Ban Act |
| Message | OOC: http://www.amren.com/features/2012/08/why-we-should-ban-hate-speech/ |
| Date | 12:48:12, May 04, 2016 CET | From | Party of Liberty | To | Debating the False and Hate Speech Ban Act |
| Message | OOC: If you're going to make an argument, don't just send links. I'm not going to read through all of that. Take it and put it into your own words. |
| Date | 12:56:47, May 04, 2016 CET | From | National Front | To | Debating the False and Hate Speech Ban Act |
| Message | This is a massive invasion of peoples freedom of speech and this party will never support this level of invasion of peoples rights. We may never agree with what these people have to say but these are still citizens of our nation and we must protect their right to say what they think, like every single person in this Parliament |
| Date | 14:48:02, May 04, 2016 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the False and Hate Speech Ban Act |
| Message | Mr Speaker, fellow Members of the Argument and Shouting House (laughter), Firstly, no rights are absolute. Rights must be limited by respect for others, and by the needs of society as a whole. Although free speech is an important value, it is not the only thing that is important. Dignity, equality, freedom to live without harassment and intimidation, social harmony, mutual respect, and protection of one’s honour also deserve to be safeguarded. Because these values conflict, they need to be balanced. Of course, there are many regulations of speech to which no one objects, for example, commercial fraud and graffiti. But remember, hate speech bans are no different (applauses). (Sneezes with a screechy voice) (laughter). Oh very sorry, fellow hooligans (laughter). I put too much black pepper on my notes (laughter). Secondly, I would like to point out the direct harm argument. Hate speech can cause psychological harm, just as hate violence causes harm to the person discriminated against physically. Children who are called the n word, or "queer” suffer a lot just like when they are physically bullied. Verbal abuse can make different environments such as workplace and educational unbearable. Thirdly, the civility argument. I accept that in our prosperous nation, we must put up with intolerant speech, even at the risk of impact on minorities. People may express hateful ideas, but we must punish those who make the crudest form of hate speech. Hate speech is just wrong. Society is right to care about courtesy and decency. Furthermore, the balance of interests argument. We all know that freedom of speech is important, but it must be balanced against other people's interests in dignity, respect and non-discrimination. Individual freedom must be balanced against equality. Finally, the hate crime argument. Bans on hate speech are necessary because it is connected to hate-based acts of murder, battery, rape, assault, and property theft or damage. Also, we would like to talk about the climate argument. Hate speech creates ugliness and slow-acting poison, which become a disfiguring part of the social environment. This is why we believe that Parliament should vote Yes on this bill as to ensure that the rise of far right groups will be halted and hate crime will be decreased. Thank you very much and we yield the floor (a standing ovation can be seen). Sir Ranfords Smithson James CBE OBE Shadow Spokesperson for Internal Affairs Parliamentary Leader of the UDAP Faction |
| Date | 18:52:44, May 04, 2016 CET | From | Knights of the People | To | Debating the False and Hate Speech Ban Act |
| Message | It depends. Where would you draw the line? |
| Date | 20:56:13, May 04, 2016 CET | From | Party of Liberty | To | Debating the False and Hate Speech Ban Act |
| Message | Oh - it seems the right honourable gentleman has decided to make the Parliament into a comedy show, Mr Speaker. In all seriousness, though, this ban on hate speech could be abused. What happens if one of the people here, in this room, are arrested for defending the culture and beliefs of Beluzia? For pointing out that immigration is a problem, and is thus arrested for 'hate speech'? We need to set up a line to draw. If this bill simply bans threatening and vulgar speech, for example simply shouting and hurling insults at someone based on gender or race or religion or anything like that, we can agree. However if we put the net of hate speech to wide, it is open to abuse. We cannot allow that to happen (applause). So, will our jester please tell us where this line is drawn? |
| Date | 20:57:00, May 04, 2016 CET | From | Party of Liberty | To | Debating the False and Hate Speech Ban Act |
| Message | Pointing out that immigration could be a problem* |
| Date | 06:52:31, May 05, 2016 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the False and Hate Speech Ban Act |
| Message | This bill is designed to ban threatening and vulgar speech like you said in your argument. Of course, members of parliament can say that immigration is a problem, but if the member of parliament infuses hate speech while debating on racial issues or social issues, then they will be prosecuted for hate speech |
| Date | 17:25:30, May 05, 2016 CET | From | Party of Liberty | To | Debating the False and Hate Speech Ban Act |
| Message | All right - we can get behind this bill, then. |
| Date | 04:31:02, May 06, 2016 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the False and Hate Speech Ban Act |
| Message | Do all other parties, This bill is designed to ban threatening and vulgar speech like you said in your argument. Of course, members of parliament can say that immigration is a problem, but if the member of parliament infuses hate speech while debating on racial issues or social issues, then they will be prosecuted for hate speech This bill is designed to ban threatening and vulgar speech like you said in your argument. Of course, members of parliament can say that immigration is a problem, but if the member of parliament infuses hate speech while debating on racial issues or social issues, then they will be prosecuted for hate speech This bill is designed to ban threatening and vulgar speech like you said in your argument. Of course, members of parliament can say that immigration is a problem, but if the member of parliament infuses hate speech while debating on racial issues or social issues, then they will be prosecuted for hate speech This bill is designed to ban threatening and vulgar speech like you said in your argument. Of course, members of parliament can say that immigration is a problem, but if the member of parliament infuses hate speech while debating on racial issues or social issues, then they will be prosecuted for hate speech Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. |
| Date | 19:48:00, May 06, 2016 CET | From | SLP-Libertarian Alliance | To | Debating the False and Hate Speech Ban Act |
| Message | I would just like to point out that repeating what you stated earlier multiple times is not a great strategy for debate and I ask that you please refrain from that in the future. |
| Date | 00:42:03, May 07, 2016 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the False and Hate Speech Ban Act |
| Message | My party believes you cannot sensor people or the press just because you do not like, or do not agree with what is said. Because of this, we will vote no |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 251 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 366 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 133 |
| Random fact: Make sure to check out Particracy's wiki. http://particracy.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page |
| Random quote: "An "acceptable" level of unemployment means that the government economist to whom it is acceptable still has a job." - Author Unknown |