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: Anti-Paparazzi Act 4968
Details
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: February 4969
Description[?]:
| . |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Privacy protection for those in the public eye.
Old value:: The media may publish personal stories and photos relating to public figures, but only if deemed in the interest of the public.
Current: The media is forbidden from publishing any personal stories and photos relating to public figures, content is restricted to their professional lives.
Proposed: The media may only publish personal stories and photos relating to public figures with their explicit permission.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 10:27:23, July 17, 2021 CET | From | 천국연합 ☸️ Spiritual Center | To | Debating the Anti-Paparazzi Act 4968 |
| Message | This could end up in censorship of publishing critical leaks. On the other hand it can mute populist assumptions. Our party is undecided on this matter. Still we would vote in favor out of coalition discipline. |
| Date | 14:35:55, July 17, 2021 CET | From | ☯ DPDP ☯ | To | Debating the Anti-Paparazzi Act 4968 |
| Message | Wouldn't this put a temper on free speech? We agree that the current wording of the law as "only if deemed in the interest of the public" is extremely vague, but the new bill could prevent critical information the public should know of from reaching society. |
| Date | 14:41:04, July 17, 2021 CET | From | 理事會 🌸 TCI | To | Debating the Anti-Paparazzi Act 4968 |
| Message | This wouldn't tamper free speech because security is the aim here. If there are shady things rumored about the person in question, there's the police who can do that, not the paparazzi |
| Date | 14:42:59, July 17, 2021 CET | From | ☯ DPDP ☯ | To | Debating the Anti-Paparazzi Act 4968 |
| Message | In theory, yes. But there's always the chance that law enforcement could be corrupt or simply inattentive. |
| Date | 15:05:10, July 17, 2021 CET | From | 천국연합 ☸️ Spiritual Center | To | Debating the Anti-Paparazzi Act 4968 |
| Message | We can understand both positions. Both have their legitimacy. In the end it is a coin flip between privacy and public interest. |
| Date | 23:25:00, July 17, 2021 CET | From | Drania Cívica 🏴 시민당 | To | Debating the Anti-Paparazzi Act 4968 |
| Message | This is censorship, plain and simple. Should there be restrictions on the paparazzi, yes. They are leeches and they frequently engage in blatant harassment. But this law is not the answer. This law has much broader effects that impact all forms of journalism, including the ability to report on public figures. As current law states, personal stories can be published if it is in the interest of the public. What is the "interest of the public?" Exposure of corruption, nepotism, shady dealings, et cetera. The media should continue to be able to report on these matters. This proposal goes against the freedom of the press and is counter to the ideals of this democratic state. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 223 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 342 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 185 |
| Random fact: Moderation will not approve a Cultural Protocol request within the first 48 hours of it being requested. This is in order to give other players a chance to query the proposed changes, if they wish to do so. Moderation may be approached for advice on a proposed change, but any advice proffered should always be understood under the provisio that no final decision will be made until at least 48 hours after the request has been formally submitted for approval. |
| Random quote: "We pursue no other aim than freedom from oppression, liberty from lies, salvation from irrationality!" - Julius Callus, former Davostani politician |