VIII.1. Free Speech loophole

[Auahi]

From: VIII.1.

nothing in this provision shall prevent the Assembly from protecting the interests of Minors and/or those lacking mental capacity

This addition to VIII.1. could be a loophole allowing for the regulation of free speech.

This text allows for anti-gay-propaganda laws like that of Russia, since it would shield the children. Anything deemed to protect the children like how Russia asserts their laws, can potentially regulate free speech.

Pull Request: #517

[Auahi]

@KacperZajc @terrorist96

[terrorist96]

Seems kinda like a stretch. The government won't be able to regulate gay adults as a way to protect children because it's already forbidden from regulating gay adults (no victimless crimes).

[Auahi]

I'm not saying just homosexuality, rather I used it as an example. Russia's laws regulating homosexuality were drafted under the pretext that it would benefit children. With the inclusion of this language the Assembly can theoretically make any law regulating free speech under the assumption that it will protect the interests of children. I don't see the point of having this in the constitution if all it does is allow the government to regulate free speech.

[liberlandcitizen]

I don't want to speak for those who wrote this line, but i'm assuming the real reasoning behind it is to prevent child pornography. Why not just ban child pornography in clear language and leave it at that instead of something that is wide open to misinterpretation and abuse?

[ghost]

There is a delicate balance to strike here. Let me think about that.

[ghost]

The broad wording has been used here on purpose. It is not only about child pornography.

This issue has two sides - 1) things that a child should not take part in 2) things that a child should not watch

So this limitation gives the Assembly the power to prevent people or businesses from casting children in things they should not star in and from showing children things they should not see.

[liberlandcitizen]

But the limitation doesn't specify it's for those two things only. And so who knows what they will use it for: regulating if you can smoke in the car with a child there, how much salt can be in food given to a child, how much fried food can be included in a child's meal, if commercials can be shown during children programming.

"Protecting the interests of Minors" is so broad!

[ghost]

this is a freedom of speech provision... where did you get cars and meals from?

[Auahi]

Even if it won't regulate what children eat it is still has ENORMOUS potential for misuse. With this provision all of the following things can happen:

• The regulation of public display of affection
• Obscene symbols banned in public
• Anything anti-religious banned in public

And many more things can be banned or limited based on this text.

This provision even allows sharia-esque laws. If the government decides that children should not see unveiled women or tight fitting clothing on women it can theoretically ban it.

Now yes, it may not be likely for these laws to be drafted, but the mere fact that it allows these laws is absurd.

[ghost]

I share your concerns. Let's find a wording which will reflect the balance we seek here.

[liberlandcitizen]

​My bad, the above text is very much out of context and I do not have the whole constitution memorized. Still, I wish we would just outright ban a few things in this constitution that we know we're against and leave everything else off the table. I'm thinking: no child pornography, no slavery, no nuclear weapons. Anything else?

We're trying to create language so the assembly can ban these certain things, meanwhile we're opening the door to loopholes.

[ghost]

slavery, conscription and nuclear weapons are already forbidden please focus on the limitation on the freedom of speech in relation to the protection of minors

[liberlandcitizen]

But HOW are they forbidden? With direct and clear reference or flowery language that can be misinterpreted? I see that slavery is directly mentioned:

"No relationship amounting to slavery or any other form of involuntary servitude shall exist between any legal or natural Person and any other Person"

So I would recommend having an equally direct statement with regard to children. Because what we currently have...

"nothing in this provision shall prevent the Assembly from protecting the interests of Minors and/or those lacking mental capacity"

is way too indirect. I could see this being used to limit what is advertised to children, limiting curse words on over-the-air television and radio in the name of children and other nonsense or even censoring the internet! If this is to protect against child pornography let's just say child pornography.

[ghost]

Finally my proposed revised version of VIII.1:

All Individuals shall have the right to upload, transmit, display, access and publish any form of material in any medium of exchange of information; no law shall introduce the requirement of licensing or registration in respect of any printed materials, radio stations, television channels, the Internet websites or any other medium of exchange of information; materials depicting Minors and Persons lacking mental capacity as well as rules governing accessing different forms of information by Non-Individuals shall be subject to control by the law; information classified as a state secret or related to the work of the of Agents of Law Enforcement operating undercover pursuant to a Warrant shall be subject to control as prescribed in the Constitution.

???

[liberlandcitizen]

This is much improved but if I am allowed one gripe it would be the word depicting. As I understand the meaning of this word, this could mean a the drawing of a child could be regulated, or a distasteful story about children could be banned. Is this our goal?

I will again suggest we unabashedly use the term "child pornography" instead of trying to find ambiguous language for the purpose of preventing child pornography. If we are to stick with the ambiguous language though, how about replacing the word depicting with something better?

I do not think it should be legal to create, sell or transmit child pornography but this is the ONLY thing I think we should have a hand in regulating as far as the transmission of material. When you say "rules governing accessing different forms of information by such Persons shall be subject to the control by the law" what you're really saying is that the Liberland government can decide what material children may or may not access on the internet and elsewhere. Pornography or otherwise! Movies with curse words. Violent video games. Rap music. Controversial literature. Do we really want to go there?

[ghost]

Child pornography is one example only (although the most notable one). The other would be some non-improvised fights between children (e.g. filmed by an abusive parent in a basement). Yes, regulating access to information is a slippery slope but I think we have recognised that minors dont enjoy absolute rights even in Liberland and it is vital to protect them. Again, pornography is not the only example of materials children should not access freely. I think the potential harm done by such regulations is relatively innocuous (banning video games etc.) comparing to the legitimate objective of protecting healthy emotional development of children. I believe this falls under one of very few exceptions of legitimate government functions.

[terrorist96]

Since we went so far as to enumerate the restrictions on freedom of contract, why not do it here as well? Child porn, child abuse (fighting), what else is there? Also, child abuse can already be made illegal without having to make videoing child abuse illegal as well.

[liberlandcitizen]

Child abuse is clearly illegal in Liberland and we should keep it to that. We all agree that this is a slippery slope so let's not go down that road. Non-improvised fights between children? I personally have never heard of this problem. Censorship is something I have seen a lot of though!

[ghost]

@terrorist96 We have enumerated exceptions to the freedom of contract because it is potentially very harmful to leave too much discretion to the government in this field. Here the harm is rather innocuous. I am also not sure we can think of everything here and I would not like to leave anything out.

@liberlandcitizen Just because you didnt think of it, it doesnt mean it would never happen xD And organising such a fight and filming it are two separate things. I can see a defence attorney arguing that the latter does not fall under the category of a crime with a victim and as such should be protected by the freedom of speech provision.

I think there is not much to lose by allowing some discretion here.