| Legal Question (interpret the meaning and application of a law) [2205.HQ] Legality of Local Council Post Suppression Policies |
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
CASE SUBMISSION I, philipmacaroni, respectfully submit the following case for consideration by the High Court. I hereby state that the information within this submission is true to the best of my knowledge, and that there is no malicious intent or vexatious nature to it. I further promise to make myself available to any future questions or request from the Court in order to ensure that this case is fairly considered. REFERENCE NAME Legality of Local Council Suppression of Double Consecutive Posts and Non-English Posts ARGUMENT I'm pretty sure suppression of posts that are: (1) not in the English language, and (2) those that are considered double posts, violate Article III, Section 1 of the TSP charter which states: 'All members of the South Pacific will enjoy the freedoms of expression, speech, assembly, and the press, limited only by reasonable moderation policies.' I also believe that those moderation policies aren't reasonable enough especially when they are suppressed even as a first warning, as not all double posts are spam, and that restricting the use of non-English languages in the RMB benefits one language community while disadvantaging other language communities without reasonable argument. REQUEST Legal Questions: (1) Does the suppression of RMB posts that are not in the English language and those that are considered double posts violate the rights of South Pacificans under Article III, Section 1 of the TSP charter? (2) Are those 'moderation' policies reasonable enough to limit the freedom of expression and speech of South Pacificans according to Article III, Section 1 of the TSP charter? Submitted to the High Court of the South Pacific
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2205.HQ] LEGALITY OF LOCAL COUNCIL POST SUPPRESSION POLICIES SUBMISSION 18 APR 2022 Notice is given that this submission has been received by the High Court and has been assigned all the necessary identifying information as follows: DOCKET NUMBER 2205.HQ REFERENCE NAME Legality of Local Council Post Suppression Policies QUESTION Does the suppression of RMB posts that are considered double posts violate the rights of South Pacificans under Article III, Section 1 of the TSP charter? Are those 'moderation' policies reasonable enough to limit the freedom of expression and speech of South Pacificans according to Article III, Section 1 of the TSP charter? The petitioner and other interested parties are invited to explain the necessity of a decision on this matter no later than , but the Court reserves the right to make a determination before then. Briefs Amicus Curiae on the preferred eventual outcome of this case are not required at this time. 2205.HQ.NR | Issued 18 Apr 2022 Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Your Honours, respectfully, I believe a decision striking down those two rules, (1) double posting and (2) non-English posts, from the Regional Message Board (RMB) rules, OR at least removing the penalty of suppression (and replaced with a warning) would be a big win for defenders of freedom in the South Pacific.
On penalising double posting, I do not believe that all double posts are particularly spammy. Having a arbitrary amount of time before allowing someone to double post is pointless. There are some posts with completely divergent and unrelated topics may necessitate or at least be preferable to be expressed in two different posts, regardless whether the posts are in succession or not, and regardless whether an arbitrary amount of time has passed or not. I think this rule is just particularly silly, and might reflect on the lack of creativity of and lack of stuff to do by Local Councillors. On penalising non-English posts, I do not believe that penalising and discriminating South Pacificans based on the language they speak is very nice. Granted that we are an English-speaking region, but instead of suppressing the non-English post, we could just ask them nicely for a translation WITHOUT necessitating a suppression. This is a discriminatory rule, and does not promote cross-cultural learning but rather criminalises it. I believe such rules with such penalties are too restrictive and limiting, and particularly violative and invasive of the freedom of speech and expression of any and every South Pacifican, which is supposed to be guaranteed by our charter. The penalty of suppression to these supposed rules are also too harsh and does not match the lack of gravity of the violation. I believe that IF such rules were found by this court to be legal, a warning, at least for first time offenders, WITHOUT suppression would suffice. Moreover, these two rules are only present in the RMB and do not apply to the discord, and to my knowledge, the forums. South Pacificans who frequent the discord and forums are not penalised when they double post or when they type in another language. Why should South Pacificans who frequent the RMB be penalised for such harmless actions that are not even illegal in other parts of the South Pacific?
Your Honors,
A decision is not necessary on this matter. The argument and legal question presented by the petitioner are largely about the desirability of such a policy rather than if the policy is "reasonable". While "reasonable" is a vague term which is open to interpretation, there is no credible reason these requirements are not "reasonable" for the LC to set. Not allowing non-English posting is a prerequisite to the LC being able to moderate such content at all, as English is the only language Local Councillors are expected to know. Double posting is a reasonable moderation policy as it moderates the manner of posting but is not overly restrictive on the content of posts. Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces Ambassador to Balder Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense ![[Image: rank_general.min.svg]](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/150w/rank_general.min.svg){kind=icon} ![[Image: updates_lifetime_3.min.svg]](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/150w/updates_lifetime_3.min.svg) ![[Image: detags_lifetime_4.min.svg]](https://github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/raw/master/mod/spsf/150w/detags_lifetime_4.min.svg) ![[Image: defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg]](https://github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/raw/master/mod/spsf/150w/defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg) ![[Image: ykXEqbU.png]](https://imgur.com/ykXEqbU.png)
Your Honours,
A decision is necessary on this case as one of my questions relates to whether the penalty of the rules mentioned above (post suppression) violate or infringe on the rights of South Pacificans under Article III, Section 1 of the TSP Charter. With regards to requiring posts to be in English, may it be noted that the Coalition of the South Pacific has no official language, and that neither the charter nor any of the laws of the Coalition explicitly state that English is the official language of the Coalition, and therefore the laws of the South Pacific do not expect Local Councillors to know English. With regards to double posting, I do not believe that it is reasonable because it suppresses posts regardless whether it is spammy or not. The blind regulation of the manner of posting is a violation of the freedom of speech of South Pacificans. Not all double posts are spam. May I also note that the Local Council allows double posts if it happens one hour after the previous post. Therefore, it is not a reasonable moderation policy, but rather a very arbitrary one. For these, I believe that a decision is necessary for this case. EDIT: May I request the court to remove all references to posting in non-English languages in the original argument and question as that falls under OOC moderation and NS site rules.
(04-19-2022, 02:12 PM)philipmacaroni Wrote: Your Honours, Pursuant to the above the question will be edited to the following: (1) Does the suppression of RMB posts that are considered double posts violate the rights of South Pacificans under Article III, Section 1 of the TSP charter? Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2205.HQ] LEGALITY OF LOCAL COUNCIL POST SUPPRESSION POLICIES SUBMISSION 18 APR 2022 | JUSTICIABILITY 19 APR 2022 Whereas this Court has been asked to exercise the judicial power vested in it by Article VIII of the Charter of the South Pacific, it is resolved as follows: DETERMINATION OF JUSTICIABILITY This case is found justiciable and shall be duly considered under all designations assigned by document 2205.HQ.NR. SUBMISSION OF BRIEFS AMICUS CURIAE Interested parties may submit briefs amicus curiae to argue their views on the whole or a part of this case no later than , and shall thereafter be liable to answer any questions that the Court may have in relation to their brief. SUBMISSION OF REQUESTS FOR RECUSAL Interested parties may request the recusal of the Chief Justice or any Associate Justice no later than 10:00 UTC. Any such requests should provide clear reasons to support the requested recusal and explain the possible negative impact of a failure to recuse. RETENTION OF RIGHTS The Court retains the right to consult with, and request further testimony and evidence from, government institutions and other third parties as necessary to adequately exercise its sole right to issue an opinion on this case. It is so ordered.
2205.HQ.DJ | Issued 21 Apr 2022 Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
In my briefs amicus curiae, I will reiterate some of the points that I've made earlier.
With regards to double posting, I do not believe that it is reasonable because it suppresses posts regardless whether it is spammy or not. The blind regulation of the manner of posting is a violation of the freedom of speech of South Pacificans. Not all double posts are spam. May I also note that the Local Council allows double posts if it happens one hour after the previous post. I do not believe that all double posts are particularly spammy. Having a arbitrary amount of time before allowing someone to double post is pointless. There are some posts with completely divergent and unrelated topics may necessitate or at least be preferable to be expressed in two different posts, regardless whether the posts are in succession or not, and regardless whether an arbitrary amount of time has passed or not. Therefore, it is not a reasonable moderation policy, but rather a very arbitrary one. I believe such rules with such penalties are too restrictive and limiting, and particularly violative and invasive of the freedom of speech and expression of any and every South Pacifican, which is supposed to be guaranteed by our charter. The penalty of suppression to that supposed rule is also too harsh and does not match the lack of gravity of the violation. I believe that IF such rules were found by this court to be legal, a warning, at least for first time offenders, WITHOUT suppression would suffice. (posted 5 mins before deadline)
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC [2205.HQ] LEGALITY OF LOCAL COUNCIL POST SUPPRESSION POLICIES SUBMISSION 18 APR 2022 | JUSTICIABILITY 19 APR 2022| OPINION 11 MAY 2022 QUESTION Does the suppression of RMB posts that are considered double posts violate the rights of South Pacificans under Article III, Section 1 of the TSP charter? Are those 'moderation' policies reasonable enough to limit the freedom of expression and speech of South Pacificans according to Article III, Section 1 of the TSP charter? SUMMARY OF THE OPINION It is the opinion of the Court that the suppression of Regional Message Board posts that are considered double posts do not violate the rights of South Pacificans under Article III, Section 1 of the Charter of the South Pacific. Further, the Court also is of the opinion that the larger set of moderation policies are reasonable restrictions upon the otherwise expansive freedoms of the citizens of the South Pacific. JUSTICE GRIFFINDOR DELIVERED THE OPINION, SIGNED ALSO BY JUSTICE BELSCHAFT. Starting with a brief overview of the background of this case, Philipmacaroni, the petitioner of this case, argued that, among other things, suppressing posts on the Regional Message Board (RMB) for reasons such as double posting was contrary to Article III, Section 1 of the South Pacific Charter. Their logic for the argument above is that suppression of a post is not a sufficient warning. The text of the aforementioned section of the Charter is as follows, “All members of the South Pacific will enjoy the freedoms of expression, speech, assembly, and the press, limited only by reasonable moderation policies”[1]. To reach the opinion for this case, the Court underwent extensive research into several past cases to look for precedent to guide it in this present case. A logical and relevant question that should be asked is what qualifies as a reasonable moderation policy? Is double posting reasonable? Is speaking in a non-English language reasonable? Is revealing another user's personal information reasonable? The Court does not presume to answer these questions, as it has no interest in analyzing each individual rule as they are created and challenged. In determining what constitutes a reasonable moderation policy, it is crucial to understand the definition of reasonable. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, reasonable is defined as being “based on or using good judgment and therefore fair and practical”[2]. With the definition of reasonable secured, the moderation policy, in other words, as viewed by people using good judgment (and acting in good faith), must be fair and practical. In precedent established by the High Court in HCRR1801: Review Of The Ban On Malayan Singapura[3], the Court noted that there was (at the time) a lack of a publically available and official set of guidelines for members of the community to follow. The logic was that without an official set of rules to guide and bound the community, the moderation of the RMB would essentially be seen as arbitrary and not fair. It is not reasonable for moderation to be arbitrary and unfair. Today, however, it is noted that the Local Council (LC) does indeed have a publicly available and official set of rules called the “RMB Etiquette”[4]. Since the moderation policy is officially written and publically available, the moderation policies meet the High Court’s prior requirements to being considered reasonable. With a moderation policy established, the LC has the ability to uphold the rules that govern the RMB. Upon a review of the RMB[5], the Court notes that a legal process has been established to sufficiently judge violations of the reasonable moderation policy; further, the same spot also provides citizens a process by which to challenge a moderation action on the RMB. This process is also publicly available and even allows this Court to act as a thoroughly neutral avenue of last resort in a case concerning enforcement of the moderation policy. This aspect was missing from the RMB when the Court decided HCLQ1908: Legality of Ejections for Conduct Violations[6]. Its presence gives further legitimacy to the standard moderation policy of the RMB and does its absolute best to ensure that the system is not arbitrary or unfair while also providing citizens the chance to appeal a potentially erroneous decision made by a member of the LC. With the legal argument deconstructed and out of the way, the Court will address the points in the petitioner's argument, specifically to the point of double-posting. First, the petitioner notes that the double posting rule is arbitrary, especially considering an arbitrary time limit to allow for lawful double posting is in place. The petitioner also notes that unrelated topics might get confused if posted with other content within a single post. Lastly, the petitioner notes that this requirement is only found on the RMB, whereas there is no such requirement for the forums or Discord. The Court must admit that the petitioner's logic in their argument concerning double posts has merit, and the Court is rather sympathetic to it. However, the nature of the RMB itself must necessarily override the argument brought forth by the petitioner. The reality is that the RMB is a single, ever-lengthening thread of content. Unlike the forums or Discord, the RMB has no other channels or threads where discussion can be divided and made into separate topics. The RMB Etiquette rules provide a set of guidelines that govern the single, ever-lengthening thread to make it work for the most number of users constructively. To facilitate this, posts on the RMB can include quotes, spoilers, and other editing content to structure a message. For example, if talking about multiple subjects, the user could use a spoiler for each differing topic rather than creating a post for each topic. If a member needs to include more information left out of a post, the option to edit the existing post or delete it and write it again exists as well. Lastly, the petitioner argues that suppression of posts is too high a penalty for violating a rule. The Court disagrees. There exists a process by which the owner of the suppressed post can appeal the decision. Further, a suppressed post can still be readily viewed by clicking the “show” button. If the post was auto-deleted or the user's posting privileges suspended, the Court would be inclined to agree and strike down such a rule or punishment for being unreasonable. However, the injury sustained under current procedures is not sufficient enough to warrant a strike down or remedy of any moderation policies by the Court. As the Court reaches the end of its opinion, reasonable moderation policies are designed to hold the community into following a set of agreed-upon rules in order to establish good-faith discourse with fellow members of the region. Because there is a reasonable moderation policy, the community can coexist and engage in discourse on equal footing without worrying about disruptive players, communication barriers, or other burdensome aspects of a multinational, multiethnic, and multilinguistic community. Similarly, the reasonable moderation policy allows the region to maintain stability and security by providing a standard for good faith interactions within a common area of the region. For that reason, the Court finds that the moderation policies, including the policy on double posting, on the RMB, are, in fact, reasonable for purposes of Article III, Section 1 of the South Pacific Charter. It is so ordered.
FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES [1] Charter of the South Pacific; Article III, Section 3 (2022). The MATT-DUCK Law Archive. [2] Definition of Reasonable; Retrieved from: https://www.dictionary.cambridge.org/us/...reasonable [3] [HCRR1801]: Appeal to the Ban Malayan Singapura (2018). Retrieved from ORCS. [4] RMB Rules and Etiquette (2022). Retrieved from https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1381878 [5] Local Council Standard Moderation Policy (2022). Retrieved from https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1413490 [6] [HCLQ1908]: Legality of Ejections for Conduct Violations (2020). Retrieved from ORCS. 2205.HQ.O | Issued 11 MAY 2022
-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016 ![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
The following 6 users Like Griffindor's post:• Belschaft, Comfed, Encaitar, philipmacaroni, The Haughtherlands, Volaworand |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |