(11-21-2018, 04:57 PM)Pronoun Wrote: I think that wording is better, but I would also argue that misleading information should also be included. In reference to recent events, for example, taking quotes out of context would not necessarily qualify as "false information."

(11-23-2018, 11:09 PM)Beepee Wrote: I agree with pronoun, I think if you make it ' false and/or misleading' it would cover most of the recent 'issues'

Quote:(9) Defamation shall be defined as the communication of false or misleading information about an individual to a recipient, for the purposes of damaging the standing of that individual and done so with a reckless disregard for its factual accuracy.

(10) Bribery shall be defined as the receiving or offering of undue patronage by or to any individual in order to influence behavior that the recipient would otherwise not alter.

Noted. I've amended the language to include misleading information. However, I am also partial to specifying that the information must be 'grossly misleading' necause how one interprets misleading information is a subjective judgement and it would be better to have a higher bar for such offences.

(11-23-2018, 11:32 PM)Farengeto Wrote: So if we're making this a crime, exactly what punishment do you expect the court to give in these cases?

I would expect a punishment proportionate to the offence. To second what Beepee wrote, I think an apology and a retraction by Tech would have sufficed in that situation, separate from whatever the EC would have determined.