In view of the reasons provided, the Court will grant the requested extension. In so doing, however, the Court asks that the Local Council be particularly diligent in answering to any questions posed during Oral Argument.

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

Reply

In response to the answers provided by Roavin, the Court would like to pose the following questions:

• Initially, this case referred to the ejection of a nation due to alleged violations of posting rules. Yet you are arguing that the nation did not qualify as a member, and therefore did not fall under due process protections. Do you believe that, should the Court determine that the ejection and ban order was unlawful, Invictean should remain banned, since they would not have been entitled to due process protections?
  
• The Court is concerned about the potential precedent that would be set by ruling that a member was not such, after a ban or any outstanding punishment was enacted. Is there not a risk that such a ruling would weaken Article III of the Charter, and prioritise reactive security actions at the expense of thoughtful and rights-conscious decisions?
  

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

Reply

Your honor,

• Initially, this case referred to the ejection of a nation due to alleged violations of posting rules. Yet you are arguing that the nation did not qualify as a member, and therefore did not fall under due process protections. Do you believe that, should the Court determine that the ejection and ban order was unlawful, Invictean should remain banned, since they would not have been entitled to due process protections?
  

Ultimately, I see the determination of the lawfulness of the ban under the Border Control Act as separate from the determination of whether Invictean has displayed sufficiently reasonable good faith and thus qualifies as a member under HCLQ1708. That being said, the evidence being gathered for either informs the other. For example, presenting the argument that Invictean is a bad faith agent intent on sowing discord in turn informs the question of legality of the ban under the Border Control Act, as trolling and sowing discord are very similar.

To address the question: Our laws currently do not postulate any rights or process regarding bans for non-members, and this has traditionally been seen as a discretionary power of those with the appropriate access. So if the court determines that the ban under the Border Control Act was unlawful, but also determines Invictean to be a bad faith agent and therefore not a member, the ban could still be reasonably upheld at the discretion of border control officers.

• The Court is concerned about the potential precedent that would be set by ruling that a member was not such, after a ban or any outstanding punishment was enacted. Is there not a risk that such a ruling would weaken Article III of the Charter, and prioritise reactive security actions at the expense of thoughtful and rights-conscious decisions?
  

The primary facet of HCLQ1708 is that next to residence, membership depends upon a reasonable display of good faith. Furthermore, an important consequence of HCLQ1708 is that membership requires having had good faith at some point, but once granted, cannot be revoked. This means that the court can only rule that an individual is not a member if, in fact, they are shown to never have fulfilled the requirements of membership, and therefore be subject to Article III protections, in the first place.

What is important to note, however, is that in the same vein as "innocent until proven guilty", an individual must be considered to be acting in good faith until shown otherwise. Assuming the other requirements of membership are fulfilled, an individual must therefore be treated as a member, and therefore granted Article III protections, up until such time that the court determines that good faith was not present and had not been present from the beginning. This is readily apparent in this very appeal - Invictean is given the right to due process under Article III because Invictean must be assumed to be a member until the court rules otherwise, subject to the restriction noted above.

In conclusion, Article III is not weakened. Any individual will be treated as a member until the court determines otherwise, which it can only do if the court can show that that individual had been acting in bad faith from the outset, and the individual is granted full Article III protections up to that time in any case.

Reply

Your honor,
 
Our interaction with Invictean began when he began posting on the Regional Message Board. Typically, he would post content in regards to the organization called “TSP Next”, and the content tended to attack the government of the South Pacific, though it notably never provided evidence. Our response was not to suppress these posts, nor was it to oppress the poster. Instead, we took the opportunity to provide constructive criticism to Invictean, asking him to provide evidence, et cetera. One the 7th of December, however, his rhetoric took a turn for the worse, as seen below.
 

“I propose that every single Communist be given a free helicopter ride! (Parachute not included)”.^[1]

 
We in the Local Council took this to be trolling, an action defined as “antagonizing (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content”.^[2]
 
The above claim has two purposes - to inflame and antagonize anyone who identifies to any degree with communism, and to advocate for murder in a crude and violent fashion. Both of these goals clearly fall under the definition of trolling as seen above.
 
We did not, however, choose to issue an order to ban Invictean immediately, despite the hostility of his comments. Instead, he was issued a warning^[3], which he duly ignored. Hours later, one of Invictean’s posts was suppressed by a moderator^[4], as the content violated site rules. That day, the Local Council issued the order to banject Invictean.
 
 

Drall-12/07/2017
Swing the hammer on all of em
^ That's the majority LC opinion

This decision was taken with a 2-0-1 vote by the Local Council, with Sam111 and Drall in favor, and Somy abstaining.
 

Sam111-12/07/2017
I'm all for banjecting them if one of you is happy to say okay

 

Drall-12/07/2017
Swing the Hammer

 
The Border Control Act clearly states that a “majority of the Local Council may order a border control action against a nation they determine to be spammers or trolls. The assent of the Council on Regional Security is required if the nation in question is not a low influence nation.”^[5]
 
Clearly, the order to ban Invictean, an obvious troll, falls with the purview of the Local Council under Article III Section 1 of the Border Control Act, and is consequently within the law. 

---

^[1] https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=28451921
^[2] Merriam Webster Dictionary
^[3] https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=28454991
^[4] https://www.nationstates.net/page=displa...art=149550 (due to the nature of moderator suppressions, the exact post cannot be linked)
^[5] http://tspforums.xyz/thread-5578.html

Marius Rahl

Fortitudine Vincimus!

(This post was last modified: 12-16-2017, 09:13 PM by Drall. Edit Reason: Formatting )

Reply

Due to the deletion of both Invictean and Truacia, I motion to dismiss this case.

I thank the court for its excellent work.

Reply

Notice of Dismissal

In view of the fact that Invictean has been deleted by NationStates Moderation, HCRR1701 is hereby dismissed.

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

Reply