~ First General Election Soon ~ Become an Ambassador, Judge, or Soldier ~ Be active in Roleplays ~ Help with recruiting, please!

United Republic of Nations

The Executive Council


President : Vacant
Vice President : Vacant
Home Secretary: Vacant
Foreign Secretary : Vacant
Treasury Secretary: Vacant
Defence Secretary : Vacant

Attorney General : Vacant


Supreme Court


Chief Justice : Vacant
Associate Justice : Vacant
Associate Justice :
Vacant


Smiley face

United Republic of Nations
Est. September 2012
"Fides, Fortitudo et Amicitia "



Welcome to our Regional Forum
Republic Info

The URoN Times
Constitution
URoN Map
First Meeting URoN
Role Playing
Games



Elections


Voting Office
Debate Room
Referendums


Poll Only
Pass the Freedom of Politics Act?
Yay 5 (62.5%)
Nay 3 (37.5%)
Total Votes: 8
Freedom of Politics Act; An Act to further define an Amendment
Topic Started: Apr 16 2013, 12:12 AM (149 Views)
Leikistan
Member Avatar
President of the Region
Freedom of Politics Act

RECOGNIZES that the Constitution of the United Republic of Nations does directly give member nations the right to their own politics.

PRAISES the United Republic of Nations for allowing Political Freedoms.

LAMENTS that punishment for discrimination is not clearly defined, leaving the door to discrimination still wide open.

DEFINES Politcal Freedom as allowing any member of the United Republic of Nations to partake in the life-style of their own political affiliation (e.g. Communist, Fascist, Democratic, Republican, Theocratic, Technocratic, Socialist, etc) and the right to voice their opinions of Government according to their political affiliation and ideaolgy.

RESTRICTS any and all Governmental officials and citizens from discriminating against those with a different political affiliation. This shall include:
a) Slander against that ideology
b) Trial against a member nation only on the charge of being of a different ideology.
c) Banishment on the charges of different ideology.
d) Prejudiced against others with a different ideology.

DETERMINES that if any nation is found guilty by the Supreme Court or Federal Council of having practiced prejudiced based on another person’s political affiliation, then they should be sentenced to restriction from holding any governmental office for 6 months.
a) If they are already a governmental official, they shall be stripped immediately of all power and authority and title on top of the existing required punishment.
b) For those that have violated this law more than once (twice to be exact), they shall be banished.

Edited by Leikistan, Apr 16 2013, 07:06 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Newport
Member Avatar

How does on differentiate between actual hate speech, joking, and, roleplay?

What a person says during a Roleplay, should be never be held against them. Simply due to the fact that, it's well roleplaying they're putting on an act. While I live in Italy, and people have joked around with me and called me a fascist; however, I don't take it seriously.

This act seems like an unnecessary piece of legislation that will only make things more complicated. Simply encourage the members of the region to play nice with one another, and let them know that rude name calling isn't allowed, and it won't be tolerated regardless of your position.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Marginia
Member Avatar

Newport is right, 'slander' against some ideology can't be forbidden because that would restrict freedom of speech.

And as I wrote on the RMB: The draft claims that "Constitution of the United Republic of Nations does not directly give member nations the right to their own politics." This is being amended in the Third Amendment, however, so the claim is probably going to be false.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Leikistan
Member Avatar
President of the Region
First of all, Newport, let's act like adults. "Asking" Members to "play nice" is ridiculous unless it is founded by LAW! If we have no law, they don't have to abide by your suggestions. Think politically.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Newport
Member Avatar

Leikistan
Apr 16 2013, 07:04 PM
First of all, Newport, let's act like adults. "Asking" Members to "play nice" is ridiculous unless it is founded by LAW! If we have no law, they don't have to abide by your suggestions. Think politically.
Don't belittle me. You're assuming everyone will join the forum once they join the region in order to read the constitution. Some people don't join forums, they choose to simply use the regional message board.

First off what do we have that currently restricts nations from running their own nation as a communist, fascist, republican, etc. state? If there isn't anything restricting it than this bill is nothing but excess bag that would be a waste of a vote.

While I will never support the restriction of speech by any means.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
The Holy
Member Avatar

I am firmly against this proposal. As many of you know I stand against fascism and dictatorship and I should have every right to voice that opinion.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Newport
Member Avatar

The Holy
Apr 17 2013, 10:30 PM
I am firmly against this proposal. As many of you know I stand against fascism and dictatorship and I should have every right to voice that opinion.
i don't think you understand that there's currently nothing restricting nations from their government in a fascist or tyrannical manner. This bill would simply make it official that no government form can be outlawed, along with restricting freedom of speech.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
The Holy
Member Avatar

I wasn't saying that Leikstan is a tyrant. I am saying that I have the right to discriminate against dictators and tyrants.
Edited by The Holy, Apr 18 2013, 07:43 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Virgin Isles

Which is more important, the right to free speech or freedom of persecuation.

Flaming etc is already banned so maybe restrict this to gov ministers who use that position to persecute. To restrict all freedom of speech is too far, no?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Leikistan
Member Avatar
President of the Region
I am and always have been of the conviction that if you are not granted a right, then you don't have it.

I belive in formalism. I believe that everything needs to be addressed in the Constitution. I DO believe in full and complete Democracy, however, if your freedom of speech is hindering one from being all that they can be, then I think you are abusing your freedoms. You, Newport, I believe are the one that I have been debating concerning the Fourth Amendment. You always make claims how our current laws of no term limits and even our "long" terms can inhibit us from getting newer ideas and a fresh perspective in. So, let's put that into practice here. Who are you, ANY OF YOU, to degrade and attack one's own political conviction and/or afiliation? The very hatred which you view some politics with may be the very hatred with which they view you. If we allow this full "freedom" of speech, then I believe that we are keeping ourselves from experiencing fullness of new ideas. This is the 21st century folks, we ought not to go around stoning those that oppose us. If restricting your right to BASH and ATTACK fellow human beings brings forth newer, and possibly better ideas, then I am all for it.

(Pardon and forgive me for my typing/spelling errors, I am on my Tablet)
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
« Previous Topic · Passed Legislation · Next Topic »
Poll Only

Theme by Sith of the ZBTZ and Outline