Freedom of speech [split from Wintercrest Embassy]

[Christian Democrats]

Culturally and socially, Wintercrest is open to all people of all backgrounds

This sounds great, but . . .

Wintercrest does not tolerate racism, religious hatred, homophobia, transphobia, and other hateful forms of speech.

You suppress free speech?

So you're not open to all people of all backgrounds.

I applaud your decision to ban hate speech, which is not only consistent with but required in order to be open to people of all backgrounds.

Yes, banning people is required for being open to all people.

[thechurchofsatan]

I don't think another region's embassy is the place for an impromptu debate on the ethics of banning hate speech.

[Guy]

Agreed. Apologies, Malden Atoll.

[Christian Democrats]

Agreed. Apologies, Malden Atoll.

Why was the first post moved?

[Ryno]

Agreed. Apologies, Malden Atoll.

Why was the first post moved?

You were going to trigger someone. duh.

[Christian Democrats]

Agreed. Apologies, Malden Atoll.

Why was the first post moved?

You were going to trigger someone. duh.

I know. Saying that a single-party state is undemocratic by definition or that banning people with disagreeable opinions* from your group is inconsistent with "open[ness] to all people of all backgrounds" might offend totalitarians.

---

* Even if those opinions have been expressed in a manner not violative of NationStates/ZetaBoards' terms.

[Guy]

There's a reason it's here - for discussion.

I don't see this discussion as appropriate, nor frankly germane, to the embassy. We have to be mindful of whether debating other regions' policies with them in their embassies is a good precedent to set, especially when it has nothing to do with TRR.

Further posts in the embassy will be dealt with accordingly

[Catalyse]

I'm pretty sure the "one-party state" thing is just a theme. In practice, a dictatorial themed region can still have democratically elected positions.

[Christian Democrats]

There's a reason it's here - for discussion.

I don't see this discussion as appropriate, nor frankly germane, to the embassy. We have to be mindful of whether debating other regions' policies with them in their embassies is a good precedent to set, especially when it has nothing to do with TRR.

Further posts in the embassy will be dealt with accordingly

I'm not free to question a message that an ambassador posts in an embassy?

[Guy]

No, there is no such categorical rule proscribing us from engaging with ambassadors in their embassies. But embassies, in practice, are essentially for exchanges of communiques. A RL debate on the merits of limitations on speech, framed as an attack on the region's ideals, is not an appropriate usage of an embassy.

On reflection, I will wait for another Admin before definitively ruling it off-topic.

[Christian Democrats]

I'm fine with you splitting my second post, but the first post should be restored.

[Ryno]

I'm pretty sure the "one-party state" thing is just a theme. In practice, a dictatorial themed region can still have democratically elected positions.

So it's really a no party state?

[Catalyse]

I'm pretty sure the "one-party state" thing is just a theme. In practice, a dictatorial themed region can still have democratically elected positions.

So it's really a no party state?

I'm not familiar with Wintercrest, but I assume a one party state theme implies that the region in itself is run by one party and that when running for office you're actually running for a party office, i.e the region is led by the politburo of the party rather than an independent cabinet.

It really depends what you mean "party" in the NS contest. I'm sure dissenting opinions are still allowed in Wintercrest such as they are here in TRR, which is a no-party state, but they just exist within their theme.

[frattastan]

@ Christian Democrats: you can repost the first part (on the one-party system), if it's meant to gather more information on the region, or question its compatibility of a one-party system with a liberal democratic order, but I'd rather not end up with a debate on the extent of freedom of speech. You can have that discussion here, if you like.

[Christian Democrats]

@ Christian Democrats: you can repost the first part (on the one-party system), if it's meant to gather more information on the region, or question its compatibility of a one-party system with a liberal democratic order, but I'd rather not end up with a debate on the extent of freedom of speech. You can have that discussion here, if you like.

Would you mind splitting off the first post and merging it back into its original thread?

Then, feel free to edit the new first post of this thread so that the context is clear.

[frattastan]

I left your comments on suppression of speech in the original topic since there were other replies and references to it, but any discussion on that matter should continue here.

[Ryno]

I'm pretty sure the "one-party state" thing is just a theme. In practice, a dictatorial themed region can still have democratically elected positions.

So it's really a no party state?

I'm not familiar with Wintercrest, but I assume a one party state theme implies that the region in itself is run by one party and that when running for office you're actually running for a party office, i.e the region is led by the politburo of the party rather than an independent cabinet.

It really depends what you mean "party" in the NS contest. I'm sure dissenting opinions are still allowed in Wintercrest such as they are here in TRR, which is a no-party state, but they just exist within their theme.

Oh, I was thinking that theme meant for show only. If the party allows radical disagreements then they are no party at all and are truly a no party state. So the question is do they have to adhere to standards to obtain office? I guess I'd have to ask them that though.