Also under Charter Section three it says:

(1) All members of the South Pacific will enjoy the freedoms of expression, speech, assembly, and the press, limited only by reasonable moderation policies.

Considering “critical discourse” falls under expression and speech means we also have the figure out if the 4 hour debate was reasonable.

Here’s a testimony from The Solar System Scope when it occurred:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=34687728
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=34687750
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=34687775

TSSS is my moral compass for this kind of thing, being a well respected part of the community, even he thought the, and I’m not exaggerating, 4 hour debate was toxic and if that was the case then moderation would have been reasonable.

I put it to the court that the reason this toxic discourse was not suppressed was because CS was afraid of another NHC corruption case. I’d also like the court to note the irony. Letting NHC break the rules because of judicial fear isn’t a good thing.

(All debaters should’ve stopped, but that would’ve allowe NHC to continue breaking the rules and ignoring their request to go to telegrams was a blatant attempt to clutter the RMB with toxic spam).