(Vetoed) Freedom of the Presses Bill

[Professor420]

Proposer: Professor420

Supporters:
Gigagaia
Shaun
JP

Bill for the Freedom of the Presses

Content Editors and their staff will have license to print anything that does not breach any of the following:

• The law of the national bodies of the United States of America and the united Kingdom, especially regarding copyright law;
• Nondisclosure agreements, such as those enforced by staff;
• The Terms of Service of this site.

It is expected that any extremely controversial content first be shown to Hex, who must come to an agreement with the journalist and editor about editing the content or not publishing it entirely. Hex can forbid the posting of content before-the-fact by a majority vote; similarly, it can remove content after it has been published by a majority vote; any such action should then be explained to the Curia.

I've made some changes and picked up where Ozy left off. I like this bill and will see it through.

History:
Version 1: Ozy's initial bill
Version 2.0: Current

[imb39]

Who determines this -

extremely controversial content

[Professor420]

The editor and journalist decide what to bring to Hex for discussion... it is a subjective thing.

[gigagaia]

While defining controversial is extremely nebulous, this is a move in the right direction. I see no harm in it, and I like what the spirit of the bill promotes.

Supported

[Kscott]

How can we have freedom of press when we dont even have freedom of speech?

[Shaun]

We do have freedom of speech here, well almost, we can say whatever we want as long as its not racist etc.

Anyway, I support this bill. Although, in essence, I don't think we had a law regarding what the TWC press can publish.

[Kscott]

We do have freedom of speech here, well almost, we can say whatever we want as long as its not racist etc.

Anyway, I support this bill. Although, in essence, I don't think we had a law regarding what the TWC press can publish.

I disagree. If that were true people would have far less warnings. I cant say ****. I cant say I want to ****. I cant say **** you *****. I cant say you dirty little *****. All greatly infringing on my intellectual rights as a free soul.

[imb39]

I disagree. If that were true people would have far less warnings. I cant say ****. I cant say I want to ****. I cant say **** you *****. I cant say you dirty little *****. All greatly infringing on my intellectual rights as a free soul.

Actually, you signed away those rights by agreeing to post here. Nothing is infringed upon at all. It is, as I said, an agreement.

[Kscott]

The soul can always be sold, but it can never be extinguished.

[Perikles]

I also support this. The 'Freedom of Speech' concept is true. Maybe we should have a bill to do with that too?

[imb39]

The issue is not about freesom of speech but that content is ‘Official.’ So long as the ToS, essentially, is contravened, peopel can more or less say what they want. As soon as content is produced for the site, then that, in of itself, is not necessarily acceptable. Due to the 'officialness' of it all and the fact it can impact very heavily on relations both within the Community and the external relations, I think it is prudent for an article to be pulled immediately it is deemed to be harming the Site. Anything that undermines that ability is simply untenable.

To be honest, if a bill was passed that impinged on this ability for prompt action to be applied then I find that very difficult to accept. Of course, any action that is taken along this lines should be explained in detail. We are all discussing aspects that are not highly likely. We ought to bear that in mind.

I'd have no problems with people using them to give ideas and visions for the site, for example - though I think the Curia/Suggestus is a far better suited medium for that but all articles should be balanced. Interviews are the obvious exception, though there is no harm is 'the other side' (if applicable, was granted an immediate response in the same or next edition.

[the Black Prince]

why is this needed?

[Gaius Baltar]

I support. Freedom of the press is one of the basic foundations of any democracy.

[Professor420]

Let me go ahead and voice the ghost everyone is alluding to.

Lets say I want to post an article with a heavy criticism of CA. It is pretty harsh, but a fair critique and articulate. I do not want to bring it to Hex, because I know they will not allow it. My editor sees the article before it is published, and passes it to the Content Manager. Out of these three people, obviously one of them will have a problem with it and likely discuss it with Hex, the article poster cannot post something on his own anyway.

So, worse case, the editor approves, and the content manager (a member of Hex) approves, and its posted, and then one of Hex disapproves. The article stays up a day or two and is taken down after Hex votes a majority. What's the big deal?

Also note, this obviously doesn't apply to the Wiki and things like that, since it only applies to Content Staff and editors and their publications, so there is a clear chain of command and responsibility.

[Tom Paine]

Excuse me. I'm about to launch a little attack on this Bill.

It does nothing. It essentially has some fun with reaffirming the status quo and does nothing more than this in the end; it will force Hex to scrutinise our work more for fear we will print something they don't want; and in the end, the Editor can always just send a draft publication to Hex to see what they think and rather than have Hex remove an article he could allow Hex to block it pre-publication. Would someone explain tro me how this Bill changes a damn thing whatsoever?

[Garbarsardar]

Excuse me. I'm about to launch a little attack on this Bill.

It does nothing. It essentially has some fun with reaffirming the status quo and does nothing more than this in the end; it will force Hex to scrutinise our work more for fear we will print something they don't want; and in the end, the Editor can always just send a draft publication to Hex to see what they think and rather than have Hex remove an article he could allow Hex to block it pre-publication. Would someone explain tro me how this Bill changes a damn thing whatsoever?

Indeed. How and why?

[Tom Paine]

Um.. Garb, can you clarify... are you agreeing or disagreeing with me therein?

[imb39]

He's Greek. He is doing both to both points of view...

[Spiff]

This bill has been moved to vote here.

[Professor420]

I know its not required, but perhaps some of the people who voted against the bill can, perhaps, EXPLAIN why they disapprove of it? You know, generally that's how efforts are constructive... people that disagree explain why, they compromise, etc. Or, if alot of people don't disagree, there is a deeper problem... but when we have an almost silent debate on a bill (except for one citizen who I already addressed in private), and it isn't achieving the majority, some explanations from the citizens would really shed some light on things... go on, don't be shy, you have posting rights in the Proth now, use them!