The Court has the following question of Local Councillors @The Solar System Scope & @Divine Owl;

Article 3.1 of the Charter allows for “the freedoms of expression, speech, assembly, and the press, limited only by reasonable moderation policies” whilst Article 5.3 of the Charter empowers the Local Council “to suppress messages on the Regional Message Board according to a standard moderation policy”.

1. Is the use of the word “Damn” on TSP’s RMB limited by a reasonable, standard moderation policy?

Because the overwhelming majority of TSP's population is aged above 12, the use of the word "damn" is not an offensive or explicit word, and therefor is not material in need of suppression.  However, there is no rule that states exactly what level of swearing is tolerated, and therefor is mostly up to the LC.  But personally, I don't think it is worthy of suppression.

AIDENFIEELD

Legislator in TSP | Active User of the RMB | Former Local Councillor | Member of The Ministry Of Regional Affairs

Reply

The Court has the following question of Local Councillors @The Solar System Scope & @Divine Owl;

Article 3.1 of the Charter allows for “the freedoms of expression, speech, assembly, and the press, limited only by reasonable moderation policies” whilst Article 5.3 of the Charter empowers the Local Council “to suppress messages on the Regional Message Board according to a standard moderation policy”.

1. Is the use of the word “Damn” on TSP’s RMB limited by a reasonable, standard moderation policy?

Because the overwhelming majority of TSP's population is aged above 12, the use of the word "damn" is not an offensive or explicit word, and therefor is not material in need of suppression.  However, there is no rule that states exactly what level of swearing is tolerated, and therefor is mostly up to the LC.  But personally, I don't think it is worthy of suppression. 

I agree with Aiden. There are some words that are unbelievably profane that should probably not be on the Board; however, this does not give liberty to a member of the Local Council to suppress posts contrary to the will of the other two members and that of the residents. This causes more frustration rather than order, and goes against the principles of the Local Council.

The Lord of Space and Protector of the TARDIS Keys of
The Solar System Scope

Logo

[Image: T5F5a5I.png]

Reply

Can I ask the Court if they have come to a ruling on how Concrete Slab may or may not have received private or personal advantage as a result of of the suppression of the post with the word "Damn" in it?

---

Legislator | Local Councilor | Aspiring TSP Curmudgeon
Messages archived by the Ministry Of the Regal Executive - Bureaucratic Services

---

Reply

For Immediate Release
21 March 2019

---

The Court provides notice to the general public that the verdict on HCCC1901: New Haudenosaunee Confederacy v. Concrete Slab will be released on 22 March around 13:00 GMT. The Court will thereafter entertain questions and doubts regarding the legal reasoning expressed in its verdict, and the process it followed in the consideration of the review request, but it will not consider questions regarding the political ramifications of the same, nor will it express opinions of a political nature on any other unrelated subject.

(This post was last modified: 03-21-2019, 02:12 PM by Belschaft.)

Reply

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
-
HCCC1901
-
NEW HAUDENOSAUNEE CONFEDERACY V. CONCRETE SLAB

CRIMINAL CHARGE AGAINST COCNCRETE SLAB FOR CORRUPTION IN THE OFFICE OF LOCAL COUNCILLOR

22 MARCH 2019

Associate Justice BELSCHAFT delivered the Verdict, signed also by Chief Justice KRINGALIA.

---

Summary of the Verdict

It is the finding of the Court that the evidence presented by the Plaintiff and others makes clear that the Defendant has abused their office for personal advantage. As such, Concrete Slab is found guilty of Courrption and barred from holding public office for a period of eight months, to begin on 01/04/2019 and lasting until 30/11/2019.

---

RELEVANT LAW AND QUESTIONS

The Court determined that the relevant law applying to this case was as follows;

Article 3.1 of the Charter.

Article 5.3 of the Charter.

The RMB Rules and Etiquette.

Of these laws the Charter has clear and unambiguous precedence over the RMB Rules and Etiquette.

Within the Charter, Article 3 “Rights and Freedoms” takes general precedence over all other sections. In this case there is no conflict between Article 3 and Article 5, as the relevant clause of Article 3 makes specific allowance for “reasonable moderation policies”.

When seeking to resolve this matter the Court thus considered the following questions;

1. Did the RMB Rules and Etiquette constitute “a standard moderation policy” in accordance with Article 5.3 of the Charter?
   
   
2. Did the RMB Rules and Etiquette constitute “reasonable moderation policies” in accordance with Article 3.1 of the Charter?
   
   
3. Was the interpretation and enforcement of the RMB Rules and Etiquette by CS compliant with Articles 3.1 & 5.3 of the Charter?

---

QUESTION ONE

The meaning of standard as used by the Charter is clear and unambiguous, in both American and British English. Merriam-Webster provides the defintion “something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example”. The Oxford English Dictionary gives us “Something used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations”.

The Court believes it to be clear that a standard moderation policy would be one that actions and behaviour can be judged against, outlining what is not and is not acceptable. There is no question that the RMB-R&E meets this standard.


QUESTION TWO

The meaning of reasonable as used by the Charter is also clear and unambiguous in American and British English. The Mirriam-Webster defintion is “not extreme or excessive” whilst Oxford English Dictionaries is “based on good sense’’.

In addition to these definitions the Court has also considered the Clapham Omnuibus Test, the international standard for determining if something is reasonable; whether a perfectly normal and average man, such as one who may be found on public transport reading his newspaper each morning, would understand it and consider it to be reasonable.

The Court believes it to be clear that a reasonable moderation policy would be one that is fair; neither too harsh or too lenient, understandable to the layman, and applied in a consistent manner. The RMB-R&E meets these requirements.

QUESTION THREE

Having determined that the RMB-R&E constitute a standard and reasonable moderation policy, the Court then considered whether or not they were interpreted and enforced by CS in a manner compliant with the Charter. For this purpose the Court considered CS’s actions by the same standards we evaluated the RMB-R&E against.

The Court found it readily identifiable, both from the specific incident referred to in NHC’s original complaint and from a cursory examination of other incidents, that the actions of CS do not constitute reasonable or standard moderation. To the contrary, the Court can think of no better way to describe these actions than unreasonable and arbitrary. The Court is reluctant to even use the word moderation in relation to these actions.

CS repeatedly substituted their own opinion for the RMB-R&E, ruling particular behaviour or language permissible or otherwise for no discernible reason and without reference to the RMB-R&E. CS repeatedly suppressed the posts of others and issued warnings to others on the basis of behaviour and language that CS themselves engaged in. CS repeatedly expressed contempt for the RMB-R&E and for regional law, making clear that they considered themselves the ultimate arbiter of what was or was not permissible. CS made it clear, by both their action and their words, that whether or not an individual was to be subject to ‘moderation’ depended entirely on their own opinion of the individual. CS invented reasons to suppress posts critical of them and their behaviour, or otherwise adopted interpretations of the RMB-R&E that were absurd and unreasonable to justify suppressing such posts.

When the behaviour of CS was challenged by others, they then attempted to concoct ex post facto justifications for their actions. The claim that the suppressed post from NHC’s original complaint was subject to ‘moderation’ due to profanity is simply one of many examples where this occurred. No reasonable individual could consider the word damn to be profane, and the two other members of the Local Council testified that the word was not prohibited by the RMB-R&E.

---

VERDICT

It is abundantly clear to the Court that CS has made use of the office of Local Councillor for their personal advantage, suppressing the posts of individuals they dislike or who criticise them. There is no question that this constitutes Corruption, nor that it has the potential to have a chilling effect on the exercise of the rights to free expression and speech guaranteed by Article 3.1 of the Charter.

As such the Court finds Concrete Slab guilty of the crime of Corruption.

SENTENCE

For the crime of Corruption the Court is required to determine punishment, which must be proportionate to the offence. In making this determination the Court had considered the nature of the crime, the Defendants prior conviction for the same offence in HCCC1802, and the lack of mitigation or repentance. The Court has determined that a ban on holding any Office of the Coalition for a period of eight months is appropriate.

---

It is so ordered.

Reply

Your honors,

the resolution of this case violates process. I bring this to your attention here to allow the Court to remedy the violation itself while it is still possible.

This case is a criminal case, and therefore subject to Judicial Act, Article 5, which describes the specific augmentations to the generalized case procedure when applied to criminal cases. This procedure does not include sentencing, but rather is only concerned with whether or not the accused is guilty of the alleged crime. This is by design (and as its principal author, I speak with some authority on the matter). Instead, Article 6 comes in to play, which describes that a sentence is a separate case from the initial case that caused the conviction, in which further evidence or amicus briefs may be brought to argue for specific sentences in front of the court, or for the Court to compel more materials (for example, to determine if the convict's crime was a one-off or part of a pattern of behavior).

I urge the Court to quickly remedy this simple error, and to begin a sentencing case for Concrete Slab.

(This post was last modified: 03-22-2019, 10:12 PM by Roavin.)

Reply

Concrete Slab has now been dismissed as a Local Councillor. The fact remains that it was not legal for the court to do this without a sentencing case, even if the court doesn't like that a sentencing case is needed. Does the Court have any plan to remedy this process violation themselves?

(This post was last modified: 04-02-2019, 05:57 AM by Nakari.)

Reply

It's been 7 months... Still no sentencing case.

Concrete Slab
Coral Guard Member
5x Local Councillor 
TSP Legislator and Citizen
Ambassador to the League 
Author of GAR #471, #479, and SCR #271
Co-author of SCR #300
Founded 1/25/18

Reply

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC 1901.SH NEW HAUDENOSAUNEE CONFEDERACY V. CONCRETE SLAB [SUBMISSION 01 FEBRUARY 2019 | PROBABLE CAUSE 10 FEBRUARY 2019 | VERDICT 22 MARCH 2019]

WHEREAS this Court has found Concrete Slab guilty of the crime of corruption and must now be given a sentence proportionate to the severity of the crime, this Court finds that said sentence should be as follows: Concrete Slab is sentenced to a ban from holding public office for a period of 8 months served from the beginning of the month following conviction. Should Concrete Slab or any other interested party know of reason why this sentence should not be set as initially found, they are invited to expose their reasons before this Court no later than 29 May 2020. It is so ordered.

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

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC 1901.S NEW HAUDENOSAUNEE CONFEDERACY V. CONCRETE SLAB [SUBMISSION 01 FEBRUARY 2019 | PROBABLE CAUSE 10 FEBRUARY 2019 | VERDICT 22 MARCH 2019 | SENTENCE 27 MAY 2020]

CHIEF JUSTICE KRINGLE DELIVERED THE SENTENCE, SIGNED ALSO BY JUSTICE NAT. WHEREAS this Court has found Concrete Slab guilty of the crime of corruption and has afforded them a reasonable time to argue the suggested sentence, this Court finds that said sentence should be as follows: Concrete Slab is sentenced to a ban from holding public office for a period of 8 months served from the beginning of the month following conviction. It is so ordered.

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

(This post was last modified: 05-28-2020, 11:08 PM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply