There are some resolutions, wholesome and unobjectionable in nature, that pass this Assembly by very wide margins. These resolutions feel good to write, feel good to vote for, and feel good when they pass. Feel-good resolutions seem innocuous. When done carelessly, however, one author’s little pork project can transform into another nation’s slaughterhouse.

The target's sole binding provision is as follows: "No person shall be punished for reading, nor for enabling oneself and/or another to read, nor for acquiring knowledge and/or cultural enrichment from non-readable media or reading media adapted for individuals with disabilities, provided that the material was legally published with the intention that it be publicly available."

1. Theft of library books or computers happens to be one means by which one could engage in "enabling oneself and/or another to read." The target effectively gives people free rein to steal devices that can access literary works and burgle buildings that contain them, so long as at least one accessible or contained work "was legally published with the intention that it be publicly available." Something being publicly available does not mean there should be no restrictions on acquiring or accessing it.

2. The target's mandate is results-based and extremely broad. Put differently, "enabling oneself and/or another to read" does not take intent into account. In every incident similar to the ones detailed above, authorities must determine whether the perpetrator's actions enabled them or anyone else to read any applicable material, regardless of what their intention was or what crime they allegedly committed. This has the deranged effect of randomizing justice and imposing inane overhead on law enforcement.

3. The target's test depends on the intention of a work's publisher, not its distributor or acquirer. As long as potentially dangerous reading materials such as bombmaking instructions, classified information, or extremist recruiting materials, or even just pirated or stolen content, are legally published in some jurisdiction, even a nonmember or a rogue state, with the intent that they be publicly available, members are powerless to protect their people from them.

In seeking to protect the principle of reading and learning, the target instead leaves people unprotected and endangered by the consequences of its poorly crafted language. As pointless fluff, the target offers minimal benefits while lending itself to inordinate damage. The good that would be done by repealing it far outweighs the good of leaving it intact, and it is fitting that a feel-good resolution can be struck by a feel-good repeal.

Co-authors: Halsoni, Noton Mast, Pallaith