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 bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: The Conservative Independence 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: September 4062
Description[?]:
| A bill to stop indecent behaviour and to put a stop to things that might cause it. |
Proposals
Article 1
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 regulate video games.
Proposed: The government maintains strict age limitation laws that require proof of age before sales of video games may be made.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The time at which sexually explicit content may be shown on broadcast television (if allowed).
Old value:: Sexually explicit content may be shown all day long.
Current: Sexually explicit content may only be shown during hours that very few children watch. Nudity may be shown all day long.
Proposed: Sexually explicit content may only be shown during hours that very few children watch. Nudity may be shown all day long.
Article 3
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: There are no laws with regards to public nudity, it is allowed.
Proposed: Public nudity is illegal, but private nudist colonies and beaches are permitted.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Displays of public affection and obscenity laws.
Old value:: There are no laws regarding obscene public acts.
Current: Sexual intercourse is illegal in public.
Proposed: Sexual intercourse is illegal in public.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:11:41, July 18, 2016 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Public decency bill |
| Message | All four of these proposals restrict freedom and we urgently plead with the CIP to stop their quest against a liberal, open and free society. We are hopeful that the Kalistani people will see these proposals the same way we do and reject them at the ballot box. |
| Date | 05:27:34, July 18, 2016 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Public decency bill |
| Message | We oppose. |
| Date | 12:15:07, July 18, 2016 CET | From | The Conservative Independence Party | To | Debating the Public decency bill |
| Message | Let me explain why I have proposed these before people judge. Some video games are not suitable for children, some include gory torture scenes and scenes wich a child may find upsetting. Parents may want to know what the recommended age is before purchasing. Sexually explicit content should not be shown on TV but nudity is natural. This links on to article 3. We accept for cultural reasons people may wish to not wear clothes in public, an exception would obviously be made for these tribes or different cultures. However in our culture nudity is something that is allowed in private or on a beach, this is what it should be like. But now you don't know were to go without seeing someone naked, people must learn that sometimes their own safety and security matters more than public nudity. And lastly, intercourse is something that should be private and not public. We agree most civil liberties are good and positive however there is a difference between liberties and carelessness. |
| Date | 14:03:13, July 18, 2016 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Public decency bill |
| Message | It is a parent's responsibility to decide what their child watches/does/plays not the government's. I can't believe that the CIP just suggested sexual intercourse isn't natural, it is perhaps the most natural action a human can perform. We see no damage to anybody of public nudity nor intercourse. These are unnecessary restrictions of individual liberty with no tangible benefits to anybody except the government, who will gain more control in people's lives. |
| Date | 14:11:54, July 18, 2016 CET | From | The Conservative Independence Party | To | Debating the Public decency bill |
| Message | We never suggested it wasn't natural but merely said that it isn't something anyone should be able to do on the streets of Kaliburg. The parent would still, ultimately have the job of controlling what their child watches/plays but this would simply be an advisory service for parents. If they wanted to let the child have it they could buy it and give it to them. And I'm sorry but the Labour Party seem to think that the government would gain something by stopping people having sex on the street. What, what on earth would the government gain? |
| Date | 14:14:13, July 18, 2016 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Public decency bill |
| Message | Government would gain the ability to control where people have sex. |
| Date | 17:20:36, July 18, 2016 CET | From | The Conservative Independence Party | To | Debating the Public decency bill |
| Message | Is that really a massive problem? People would be able to do it in their own homes and private property wich may I remind everyone, the Labour Party is more than happy to take away. The CIP don't car who you do it with as long as you don't do it in front of others. And honestly that is not benefiting the government financially or in any way. I repeat the question what would the government gain from this wich would negatively effect people? |
| Date | 19:16:17, July 18, 2016 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Public decency bill |
| Message | We are not willing to take away the right of people to have sex in their homes and private property- that is a lie and it is slanderous. We repeat the answer: the government would gain the ability to control where people have sex. They should not have that power and whilst there are parties which believe in freedom and liberty they won't gain that power. |
| Date | 21:54:49, July 18, 2016 CET | From | The Conservative Independence Party | To | Debating the Public decency bill |
| Message | We meant that the Labour Party is more than happy to take away private property, not the right to sex. |
| Date | 22:01:06, July 18, 2016 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Public decency bill |
| Message | We are not happy to take away private property, another lie. |
| Date | 22:12:02, July 18, 2016 CET | From | The Conservative Independence Party | To | Debating the Public decency bill |
| Message | Really, what about the farmers land wich you are happy to take away and their right to deal with companies without government interference. |
| Date | 22:22:06, July 18, 2016 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Public decency bill |
| Message | That is not relevant to the Public decency bill if the CIP takes umbrage with the NAA then they should refer to the NAA bill to discuss this. |
| Date | 05:05:33, July 19, 2016 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Public decency bill |
| Message | Put it to a vote or withdraw the bill. |
| Date | 11:18:23, July 19, 2016 CET | From | The Conservative Independence Party | To | Debating the Public decency bill |
| Message | We will put this to a vote when we want to and not when we are told thank you very much. |
| Date | 14:21:03, July 19, 2016 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Public decency bill |
| Message | If the CIP refuses to move bills on which debate has concluded swiftly through the Assembly, we will interpret this as simply spamming the government with bills and would have to contact the relevant authorities to seek to end it. |
| Date | 23:33:01, July 19, 2016 CET | From | Libertarian Democrats of Kalistan | To | Debating the Public decency bill |
| Message | We firmly disagree with how the coalition handled their response. None of the bills proposed by the CIP are 'spam'. These bills have all been in line with the CIP's politics and we support them to stay true to what the believe in - despite being different to the views of the DFA. We disagree with Article 1, but would support this bill regardless. Regards, Lucia de Beloki DFA Internal Affairs Spokesperson |
| Date | 23:48:42, July 19, 2016 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Public decency bill |
| Message | When debate has ceased, a bill is put to a vote unless there is some reason why it should not (e.g. the deadline is after an election, the bill require a unanimous decision, it is a sticky etc.). The government was not happy that the proper process was being followed and that is why we took our course of action. |
| Date | 11:41:26, July 20, 2016 CET | From | The Conservative Independence Party | To | Debating the Public decency bill |
| Message | How is threatening the democratic system like SPoK have been doing the proper democratic system and leaving a bill in debate is an offender? Either the constitution is mucked up or it's just the let. I am inclined to believe it was the left. |
| Date | 13:17:17, July 20, 2016 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Public decency bill |
| Message | The SPoK has not threatened the democratic system. They are perfectly entitled to activate their militia whenever they wish, as the Party Militias bill outlines. We know that the CIP is aware of this bill as we personally notified them of it. They can no longer plead ignorance! |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 271 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 479 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: You can view who's online (i.e. been active the last 10 minutes) at the bottom of the menu (either at the top or the side). |
| Random quote: "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. " - P. J. O Rourke |