by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

7

DispatchBulletinCampaign

by The Official Account of 10KI WA Secretariat. . 21 reads.

GA "Whistleblower Protection Act" Voting Overview

Overview

Proposal:
This proposal aims to protect Whistleblowers by outlawing the penalization of them.

Opinions:

For:

Eist wrote:Why are people voting against this? It surprised me when I logged in. It seems right up the WA's alley, and is well thought out and well written. I'm going to vote FOR, but would be interested in why people are voting against.

Tepertopia wrote:Protecting whistleblowers and their partnered media outlets from repression by the state is an imperative step to take by the World Assembly. Informing the public of illegal operations by member states or businesses operating within them furthers their integrity and the democratic process, and that must not be a crime. The sole exception denoted by the proposal ‒ information that could directly lead to loss of life for those involved ‒ is a sensible and needed one, because human life shouldn't be outweighed by any right to information. Also, demonstrably false information explicitly not being covered by the proposal's protections is reasonable as well, as intentional disinformation would work well against the cause of the proposal ‒ having the people informed well about their government's actions.

Liber Operarios wrote:Liber Operarios will be voting in favor of this resolution. However, we still feel it does not go far enough. While the concerns that are addressed in section 2 are supposed to prevent threats to so-called "national security," the government of Liber Operarios believes withholding information from the populace makes the state above its people and not the arm of them. If a government attempts to hide information, then how can the people know it is working for them?

While we believe any progress is good progress, there is still work that needs to be done. We hope that in the future these issues may be addressed in future legislation.

Against:

Enjuku wrote:Enjuku, considering the importance of a nation-state's right to privacy and to protect its national security, will be voting AGAINST this resolution.

We are hopeful in the future that the WA will consider that some nations should reserve the right to prioritize the safety of its people over the safety of dangerous and divisive rhetoric. Freedom of speech is a prized right in Enjuku, and we stand with the spirit of this resolution. However, as the saying of "do no shout fire in a movie theater" makes common sense, it should also be common sense that the voice of one disgruntled person, trusted at-glance, should not unnecessarily topple the livelihoods of innocent people or organizations. Speech, as with other activities, can be weaponized, and thus should be reasonably regulated. And governments have a duty to protect their citizens from such things.

Asianite wrote:Asianite cannot get behind section 5d. Although we approve of all other provisions of the proposal, we fear section 5d imposes a great restraint on the right to free speech, which includes the right to not speak at all. Asianite will vote against for that sole reason.


RawReport