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 Information Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Democratic Socialist 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 2082
Description[?]:
| Hate speech has no place in our society: incitement to violence against any ethnic, political, social or religious group should be a crime. |
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 | 19:17:39, July 02, 2005 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Media Information Act | | Message | 1) anything can be construed as hate speech. What may not offend one might offend someone else.
2) This bill is going to incite a right because the people are going to scream that this bill will violate free speech. |
| Date | 19:31:58, July 02, 2005 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Media Information Act | | Message | So I could walk up to a socialist and say to him that socialists are idiots. If he hits me is that incitement to violence? |
| Date | 19:43:35, July 02, 2005 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Media Information Act | | Message | Yes I do! Do you understand though that Hate speech is a very fine line? What can cause violence among people of one group, won't cause violence with that same group. It is really a fine line and I don't think you can really legislate it. |
| Date | 03:41:45, July 03, 2005 CET |
From | Nationalist Free-Market Republican Party | To | Debating the Media Information Act | | Message | I absolutely am against this bill. Hate Speech is one of the largest gray areas invented in government history. I will not support this bill under ANY condition!
All parties who vote for this bill are against free speech and against the people! |
| Date | 17:30:37, July 03, 2005 CET |
From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Media Information Act | | Message | We oppose. This shouldn't be hunt by public prosecutor. If someone is resentful or injured by publication, he have right to civil trial. |
| Date | 21:19:04, July 04, 2005 CET |
From | Democratic Socialist Party | To | Debating the Media Information Act | | Message | It seems you were a little confused on the meaning of "inciting violence", RP. For instance, "We must kill all black people/communists/homosexuals/Jews" is incitement to violence against an ethnic/political/socail/religious group. The media in a civilised society should not be able to broadcast messages like these on national TV. |
| Date | 21:53:39, July 04, 2005 CET |
From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Media Information Act | | Message | Now your going to limit the freedom of the Press to that? What if its an opinion written in the opinion section of the paper? It is the paper's perogative if he/she wants it in his or her paper. |
| Date | 22:14:12, July 04, 2005 CET |
From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Media Information Act | | Message | The right to free speech is tempered with the reesponsiblity not to abuse it. Inciting violence is effectively conspiracy to cause assault or an affray or something worse, and so ought to be illegal. It is the responsibility of the police to intervene to protect those who suffer unjustly by others' actions. |
| Date | 22:14:37, July 04, 2005 CET |
From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Media Information Act | | Message | And the real DSP aim is to restrict medias for other Parties. You said something against DSP you go to prison. Its "hate speech". |
| Date | 06:58:15, July 05, 2005 CET |
From | Nationalist Free-Market Republican Party | To | Debating the Media Information Act | | Message | I agree with you, RP.
And SDP, it's the viewers choice -- if people want to hear that, that's what they'll get. However, if they don't, than that show is cancelled as there's no viewers. Imagine that! Oh, the joys of the free-market. |
| Date | 15:10:52, July 05, 2005 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Media Information Act | | Message | I really hate it when people try to tell me you can't say that because it offends someone.
Well my old roommate had a saying, "Political correctness offends me, therefor it is politically incorrect to be politcally correct."
This is nothing more than that. Its political correctness and it violates my rights as a citizen to say what I want. |
| Date | 22:36:47, July 05, 2005 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Media Information Act | | Message | I hate affirmative action even more. Why? Unqualified people are getting those jobs and not the qualified ones. |
| Date | 00:16:42, July 06, 2005 CET |
From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Media Information Act | | Message | "You said something against DSP you go to prison. Its "hate speech"."
You can declare your hatred and odium for the DSP all you like under this law. You can attack them to the best of your rhetorical abilities. If you start telling people to take a gun and aim for the people with orange rosettes, then you'll be charged under this law.
"And SDP, it's the viewers choice -- if people want to hear that, that's what they'll get"
If impressionable people are prepared to listen to incitements to kill, maim, and mutilate, then yes?
The essential question is: should people be allowed to explicitly encourage others to break the law and to do harm? |
| Date | 17:52:32, July 08, 2005 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Media Information Act | | Message | Nothing was addressed to me. It was addressed to the Republican Party and to the NFMRP! |
| Date | 00:09:26, July 14, 2005 CET |
From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Media Information Act | | Message | The essential question is: should people be allowed to explicitly encourage others to break the law and to do harm?
- This is addressed to all. |
| Date | 19:39:27, July 15, 2005 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Media Information Act | | Message | The essential question is, what is constituted as being offensive? Anything can be taken offensively and lead people to violence. |
| Date | 22:52:00, July 15, 2005 CET |
From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Media Information Act | | Message | "If you start telling people to take a gun and aim for the people with orange rosettes, then you'll be charged under this law." It's been already regulated. Every instigation, incitement, abetment or how ever it's call to crime is a crime + abetment to commit suicide is a crime, beacause commiting suicide isn't a crime ;) . It's basis of crime Law. Hate speech defined as ' incitement to violence against any ethnic, political, social or religious group' isn't a synonym of abertment to crime, it's make a law bug because judge have to check isn't this incitement to violence or isn't it. Violents it's more wide-spread world then crime in my opinion. |
| Date | 22:52:11, July 15, 2005 CET |
From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Media Information Act | | Message | Being "offensive" will not be a crime under this law. Criticising and attacking people will not be a crime under this law. What will be illegal will be to directly instruct, exhort or direct others to commit acts of violence.
You can say 'I hate the liberals, you should all vote against socialists, you shouldn't even speak to them', but if you say 'if you see a liberal, chuck some stones at him', *then* that would lead to prosecution under the law proposed.
Now, does any party suggest it should be legal to commend violence?
(Incidentally, I noticed this hadn't been replied to "If someone is resentful or injured by publication, he have right to civil trial". Not under present law, unless the perpetrator lied. Under the law proposed, they will.) |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 106 |
| no | Total Seats: 193 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In Particracy players are only allowed to play as one party at a time. Want to swap nations? Inactivate your current party and make a new one! Want to return? Request Moderation to reactivate your party on the forum! |
| Random quote: "I say myself that I am beautiful, and I think that all woman strive to look like me.“ - Melissa Hargreaves, former Dranian politician |