Limited Restrictions to Freedom of Speech Act of 2

[Mr. Tony Weckström]

Limited Restrictions to Freedom of Speech Act of 2008 / DPD

WHEREAS the Government of Talossa needs to grow and prosper, the language used on the public forums should be restricted from certain subjects and wording. It is hereby therefor proposed that;

1. Writings that are clearly racist, or compared to racism should be removed immediately, and the writer issued a warning. Should three (3) warnings not be enough, the citizens writing privileges should be limited.

Amendment 1: If any threats are made, meant as a joke, the treath should have an asterisk (*) in front, and behind of the actual text (*).

2. Writings that incite violence against a group of people, should be immediately removed, and the writer issued a strong warning. Should one (1) more such warning be given, the citizen should lose all his writing privileges for no less than three (3) months.

Amendment 2: If any threats are made, meant as a joke, the treath should have an asterisk (*) in front, and behind of the actual text (*).

3. Writings that clearly threaten the physical health of others, should immediately be removed, and the writer issued with a strong warning, and depending on the severity of the text; a vote of the Cosa should decide on the removal of the writers rights of citizenship.

Amendment 3: If any threats are made, meant as a joke, the treath should have an asterisk (*) in front, and behind of the actual text (*).

4. A censor be appointed by the Cosa to seek out, edit, and remove such texts that fall into the categories described in the points above. The censors post shall be no longer than six (6) months at a time, after which a new censor should be appointed by the Cosa.







THEREFORE be it resolved by the Ziu of the Kingdom of Talossa that

1. That this act shall pass.



For the 39th Cosa




Tony Weckström
DPD / Member of the Cosa

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

Normally I would avoid this kind of argument, but I'm sitting home and don't have anything other to do, so:

1. Writings that are clearly racist, or compared to racism should be removed immediately, and the writer issued a warning. Should three (3) warnings not be enough, the citizens writing privileges should be limited.

This is, as you say, "Limiting" Free Speech. If some crazy Nazi wants to call me a, and please excuse me from using this word, kike - that is his right as a human being. I may not like it, it is not very nice, it is a hate word. But I cannot stop him from saying it.

[Deleted]

And while we may not wish to condone that activity on Witt, especially something that promotes racism or prejudice (after all, that would not help us attract a very open minded and diverse citizenry), the idea of creating a law that limits freedom of speech is one that has been shot down many many times before.

Even my own proposal many moons ago with regards to making holocaust revisionism illegal as some European nations have. But, I understand that would be a slippery slope and I yield to the people.

[Vit Caçeir]

Although I like the basic premise of this bill, my only problem with it is that it is open to almost too much interpretation.

For example, if another Talossan citizen, for these purposes I will name Bob, were to, lets say post an embarassinng albeit funny photo of myself on the "Chatroom" section of this website, and I said "Bob, I'm gonna kill you for that ".

Technically, I would be in violation of this law, even though it's clear to anyone with three brain cells that I have no intention to kill Bob. If this law is to serve an accurate purpose, I think it should be either as specific as possible or a clause should be written leaving it "open to reasonable interpretation".

There's my two cents.

PS: If I'm violating some sort of custom by posting here before my Party (should it decide to do so) awards me Cosa seats, do let me know and I'll back out of this topic.

[Jack Fenton]

No, I think all bills are open to discussion by the citizenry.

I've thought about these kinds of laws time and time again. Whatever they say, they'll always be much too slippery, because of their nature, I'm against it.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Oct 17, 2008 12:44:36 GMT -6 Jack Fenton said:

No, I think all bills are open to discussion by the citizenry.

It's the Ziu where I get cranky...

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

How does this differ from:

talossa.proboards32.com/index.cgi?board=immigration&action=display&thread=2533

Like:

Talossa has citizens from various races, five continents, and who knows how many religious backgrounds. Some of our citizens have no religion at all; others are very serious about their religion, whether Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, “Brianist”, Buddhist, Jewish, Moslem, or None of the Above. Racism is utterly forbidden on Wittenberg, and will get your account suspended; religious, national, or sexual bigotry will be very strongly frowned on.

WITTIQUETTE RULE 3: No bigotry.

and:


Sometimes, foreign (non-Talossan) politics are mentioned or even discussed on Wittenberg. This is OK, but keep in mind that Talossa includes people from all parts of various political spectrums. Even in purely American terms, we have conservatives, Republicans, Federalists, Democrats, liberals, socialists, Libertarians, and maybe even anarchists. (Some of us fall into more than one category.) Add in our non-American citizens, and we have Christian Democrats, monarchists, Tories, Labourites, and who knows what else. And to make things even more complicated, we have guests from the Talossan Republic. If we’re all going to get along together, and have fun, the divisive nature of political arguments must be tempered and controlled. So, without feeling you have to stifle your opinions, be aware that other people — other nice, productive, patriotic Talossans — probably disagree sharply with you about Supreme Court nominees, abortion, the Weimar Constitution, the war in Iraq, the Lega Nord, the minimum wage, the Princes in the Tower, the President’s honesty, the Embargo Act, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Hillary Clinton, Québec separatism, the Electoral College, the Intifada, and statehood for West Virginia.

WITTIQUETTE RULE 4: In political discussions especially, exercise restraint, respect, and moderation.

[EM Vürinalt]

What the SoS said.

[Owen Edwards]

A further issue - what Witt does, as a private entity serving the Kingdom, is separate from what is national law; and nationally speaking, legally speaking, restricting freedom of speech outside of link crimes (incitement to violence etc) is an abominable idea.

[Daniel Filan]

Also, I don't think that the asterisk idea would work well. If you want to give the law teeth, it will apply to people who joke. If you don't, then people could just say "*I will come to your house in the middle of the night and disembowel you* BTW I'm totally serious" and this would not be covered.

Also: what about email? What about writing letters? What about everyday speech? What about telephone conversations?

In my view, this bill is unnecessary and pointless.

[Owen Edwards]

This Act, properly speaking, should apply to inter-citizen interaction of any form, as Witt is a private enterprise so any laws applying to it really be corporate control laws rather than real "freedom of speech" issues. And insomuch as I oppose either sense of this Act (Witt or national)...

[Cole Schneider]

How does limiting the rights of current citizens going to bring in new citizens? I do see where something like this might be good, but not here and not now.