| User Pruning and the BoR |
|
I've been looking over the BoR, and I'm inclined to believe that that "user pruning" is an Article 2, Clause 2 violation, in that it restricts the constitutionally protected right to voice an opinion on the forums. Clauses 3, 4 and 5 are all possible issues as well. All these rights are dependent on forum access, which is restricted arbitrarily by the possibility that their accounts may be deleted.
Opinions? Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
Based upon the last phrase of the clause, I think any user prunin' would have to be approved by the Assembly.
The Third Imperium
Journalist, South Pacific Independent News Network (SPINN) Provost, Magisterium Sergeant, East Pacific Sovereign Army Journalist, East Pacific News Service Foreign Affairs Minister, The West Pacific
I would agree with Justice God-Emperor that it could be considered a reasonable restriction if it were approved by the Assembly. I'm not certain if this administration policy was ever directly approved the Assembly. I know administration and moderation policies are supposed to be brought to the Assembly for "feedback", but not necessarily approval.
Thus is could be a Section 2 violation. However, we can only answer this in a legal question and ultimately it's the appellate court which would deal with any issues with a moderation decision in retrospect. I will point out two things out however: A. There's nothing in the law which prohibits one of the Justices from asking a legal question publicly - and the other two giving the answer. B. There may be room to argue that the High Court could veto administration policies for conflicting with The Charter. Quote:4. The High Court may declare any whole General Law, or portions within such law, that conflict with the Charter defunct, and to reconcile contradictions within the Charter. Here, we would have to decide whether an administration policy is a law. I think there's an argument to be made that the artificial distinction between "policy" and "law" is not supported anywhere in our lawbooks. Article 8 outlines that the Admin team will make these policies - but the idea that these policies can conflict with the constitution is not supported anywhere in the text, it seems to be more or less a myth.
I would argue that the Charter, by mandating the creation of such policies, clearly indicates that the same subsidiary principle we apply to elements of the CoL that we seperate - the SPSF CoC for example - should apply. The Charter is the supreme law of the law, and any other legal document should be seen as a law beneath it.
Therefore if there is a BoR violation then the policy can be declared defunct. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
I think the argument is perfectly valid too, despite the fact that people have claimed rather arbitrarily that administration is "separate" from the Charter.
Agreed, but I'd likely recuse myself if this question is brought before the court.
The Third Imperium
Journalist, South Pacific Independent News Network (SPINN) Provost, Magisterium Sergeant, East Pacific Sovereign Army Journalist, East Pacific News Service Foreign Affairs Minister, The West Pacific
Given this...
Quote:2. The Court Justices shall have the authority to examine laws and make recommendations to the Assembly, however they may not issue an arbitrary judgement or opinion on laws without a specific legal question being filed. Someone needs to submit the legal question. Again it could be one of us, as far as the law is concerned.
We wouldn't be givin' an opinion on a law. It'd be on an administrative policy. The judgement would be in no way bindin'.
The Third Imperium
Journalist, South Pacific Independent News Network (SPINN) Provost, Magisterium Sergeant, East Pacific Sovereign Army Journalist, East Pacific News Service Foreign Affairs Minister, The West Pacific
In constitutional terms the only distinction between a 'law' and 'administrative policy' is that one is enacted by the assembly, and the other by those deputized by the assembly.
My understanding of this is that we are agreed that " user pruning" is probably illegal, but that we are prohibited from issuing an opinion establishing such and rendering the policy defunct without a legal question being submitted. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
I'm still of the opinion that the court could give a non-bindin' opinion on administrative policy, so long as said opinion makes no mention of the Forum Administration Act or existin' citizenship laws.
The Third Imperium
Journalist, South Pacific Independent News Network (SPINN) Provost, Magisterium Sergeant, East Pacific Sovereign Army Journalist, East Pacific News Service Foreign Affairs Minister, The West Pacific |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |