By FRS
Hello readers, firstly I just wanted to explain why I was writing the long awaited sequel to my insider article of the opposition, the opposite view 2: electric boogaloo.
It has come to be my belief that in order to oppose something officially as the opposition you ought to have a damn good reason for opposing legislation.
So here is my reason for opposing the media regulation act, so as this was fiercely debated here is a timeline of all of Oranjehaven's opinion on the matter:
My response:
Option 1 was a genuine issue, option 2 was my attempt at steering the media regulation into the hands of an independent official, however this was rejected by Meercovo, Oranjehaven (henceforth to be refered to as OJ) and Patec, which was completely understandable given the size of the region compared to the size of the government
Following concerns raised by Patec, OJ responded with the following:
So my feelings are made clear below but in summary, the OOC reasons are covered, there is no need for new legislation, so the only rational other argument in favour of regulation of the media is to control what is being said in the media
Quite strong words from me there, and I stand by them
But in my opinion neither ONN or RNO have ever posted false information, just information that the Oranjehaven government disagrees with, however, media outlets can cover events how they wish, this is the basic principle of a free and fair press.
What I was initially angling for as a compromise, but this whole experience has left a bitter taste in my mouth - this still prevents a free press, compromise in my opinion will not solve this issue, the legislation needs to be taken out and executed by firing squad and therefore I still oppose it at this point.
Conclusions
So in short (if you didn't want to read the long timeline) I oppose the regulation of media as I believe that the freedom of the press is a fundamental right that must never be undermined.
Whilst Oranjehaven claimed that the legislation was to prevent god-modding, this legislation already exists - I wrote it, and it was written all the way back in the UFN.
Therefore as an office holder responsible for scrutinising bills, I have to look at the facts rationally and logically. If legislation against what is in effect 'fake news' and godmodding already exists, why do we need further legislation against this? - in short no. so therefore what are the alternatives?
The answer is simple: to control the output of news from the media, a much more sinister threat, which threatens the access to and freedom of information within the region. I am using the media now to present this - under the media regulation act I could have been silenced to do so.
This opposition will never allow freedom of speech to be suppressed in the name of 'fake news'