| Legal Question (interpret the meaning and application of a law) [1908] Legality of Ejections for Conduct Violations |
I would point out that the Court has already ruled on the due process requirements afforded to players banned for other violations in case of LC initiated bans of spammers and trolls, in HCRR1801 - REVIEW OF THE BAN ON MALAYAN SINGAPURA, where the Court ruled that due process that was not met in that case. The case summary:
It is the opinion of the Court that the ban on Malayan Singapura violates Article III, Section 3 of the Charter, and should be lifted. This is supported by a lack of written and publicly available posting guidelines at the time of the offending behaviour, the ambiguous and unclear nature of the warnings given, and the overall nature of the procedure employed by the Local Council. While the Local Council does have the power to expel spammers and trolls, this must follow certain procedures and guarantees, namely the public availability of written guidelines and the existence of a reasonable moderation process. Malayan Singapura was not afforded these minimal due process guarantees, as required by Article III, Section 3 of the Charter.
The Court has no reason to strike down any section of the Criminal Code. Since the Court has already outlined due process expectations for banjections for one reason, the "least amount of disruption to the intended purposes of the contradictory parts" would be to outline reasonable due process expectations for the exact same action but carried out for another reason. Legislator | Local Councilor | Aspiring TSP Curmudgeon Messages archived by the Ministry Of the Regal Executive - Bureaucratic Services |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |