| Legal Question - Formal Apologies |
|
I thought I'd start a thread to make sure it doesn't get lost. The question is from Unibot.
Without reading into it further and based on the fact I just recentky woke up, I think the court making citizens apologize only comes after they have been found to have broken a law anyway. You may have rights, but by becoming a citizen, you also agree to follow the laws in place. If you break the law, you are aware what the penalty is likely to be as it is spelled out in the code of laws (it currently is anyway).
That said, with the amount of laws proposed/being voted on right now, who knows what the situation will be in as little as a few days time.
Although based on the proposed court charter thread, it does seem a lot of people don't want the courts to have any powers, and justice may as well just be a ceremonial position. Not too happy with how people are responding to that, but not really surprised either.
(02-20-2015, 06:30 PM)Aramanchovia Wrote: Although based on the proposed court charter thread, it does seem a lot of people don't want the courts to have any powers, and justice may as well just be a ceremonial position. Not too happy with how people are responding to that, but not really surprised either. I feel the same here to be honest. The overwhelming wave of negativity and mistrust is soul destroying. I expected changes but not what it seems to have evoked. I'm taking a few days away from TSP because frankly I'm not enjoying this game right now. On a better note, hope you had a happy birthday! 
Thanks, wasn't too bad. Hope you did too!
I'm not sure it would be appropriate to voice an opinion until we actually know what has passed but given that the proposed wording is just a variation on the original wording in the Bill of Rights, I don't see any significant change in the new wording.
Old Wording: "The freedom to voice their opinions on all matter of their interest, including the peaceful criticism of the Coalition and its government, on both the Forum and the Regional Message Board, subject to reasonable restrictions established by the Assembly that do not violate the spirit of the Charter." New Wording: "3. The freedom of thought, including the freedom of belief, opinion and conscience." At the same time the CoL clearly states: "2. If found guilty of defamation, the offending nation must issue a public apology to the nation in which the offense was committed against. Further punishment may be determined by the Judiciary." The Court wouldn't be infringing on peoples freedom of thought, belief, opinion or conscience. What it would be doing is telling someone to apologise for something that they said was defamatory, possibly even something they knew was defamatory when they said it.
"Defamation shall be defined as communication of a statement which makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, in an attempt to harm the reputation of another user or group of users on the forum. The offended must express the offence to the Court in order for the charge to be considered."
The law by definition requires the convicted to have made a claim which has been proven both false and an attempt to harm the reputation of an individual. They are only forced to apologize for what was proven both wrong and well... defamatory.
Since three Court Justices have weighed in on this, I guess I'll be sitting this one out as the Non-Presiding Justice
The Presiding Justices for this case may want to continue discussions/start drafting statements. This has gone unanswered for some time now
I could type out some text for it tonight, but someone else will need to edit it for posting (including removing unnecessary formatting). For some reason whenever I copy and paste here, the formatting goes weird, something to do with using my phone probably.
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Former Offices| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |