I would agree with Justice God-Emperor that it could be considered a reasonable restriction if it were approved by the Assembly. I'm not certain if this administration policy was ever directly approved the Assembly. I know administration and moderation policies are supposed to be brought to the Assembly for "feedback", but not necessarily approval.

Thus is could be a Section 2 violation.

However, we can only answer this in a legal question and ultimately it's the appellate court which would deal with any issues with a moderation decision in retrospect.

I will point out two things out however:

A. There's nothing in the law which prohibits one of the Justices from asking a legal question publicly - and the other two giving the answer.

B. There may be room to argue that the High Court could veto administration policies for conflicting with The Charter.

Quote:4. The High Court may declare any whole General Law, or portions within such law, that conflict with the Charter defunct, and to reconcile contradictions within the Charter.

Here, we would have to decide whether an administration policy is a law. I think there's an argument to be made that the artificial distinction between "policy" and "law" is not supported anywhere in our lawbooks.

Article 8 outlines that the Admin team will make these policies - but the idea that these policies can conflict with the constitution is not supported anywhere in the text, it seems to be more or less a myth.