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: Restriction on Hate Speech
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative Socialist Party
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: August 4133
Description[?]:
| This bill aims to restrict the publication of hate speech. We are a tolerant society, and hate speech has no place here in Rutania. |
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; everything else may be published freely.
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 | 22:10:08, December 09, 2016 CET | From | Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Restriction on Hate Speech |
| Message | Restricting the publication of hate speech can easily lead to restricting the freedom of speech |
| Date | 22:41:32, December 09, 2016 CET | From | Socialist People's Party (SPP) | To | Debating the Restriction on Hate Speech |
| Message | First, I'd like to point out that there are many things you are legally not allowed to say. The example everyone is familiar with is that you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded. But there are many more examples of things you have no legal right to spout off. You can't incite people to violence, you can't slander (in speech) or libel (in writing) someone, and you can't say things that would make any reasonable person punch you in the face |
| Date | 03:28:44, December 10, 2016 CET | From | Conservative Socialist Party | To | Debating the Restriction on Hate Speech |
| Message | If you're worried about restricting free speech, voice that concern when someone tries to legislate that bill! The slippery slope argument is a weak one. Basically it says I have no reason to oppose this, but someday you might instead do this other thing I oppose. Gimme a break... |
| Date | 09:25:17, December 10, 2016 CET | From | Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Restriction on Hate Speech |
| Message | Tensions already run high. This bill can put people behind jail because their just outing their opinion. It doesn't mean I agree with that opinion, but also doesn't mean they should be sentenced because of it. A really tolerant society also tolerates opinion they don't agree with. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 397 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 151 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 52 |
| Random fact: In cases where a party has no seat, the default presumption should be that the party is able to contribute to debates in the legislature due to one of its members winning a seat at a by-election. However, players may collectively improvise arrangements of their own to provide a satisfying explanation for how parties with no seats in the legislature can speak and vote there. |
| Random quote: "Nature provides a free lunch, but only if we control our appetites." - William Ruckelshaus |