| Legal Question (interpret the meaning and application of a law) [2001] Application of the Regional Communications Act |
|
High Court of the South Pacific Case Submission Your Honours,
I, Jay Coop, 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. Nation: Qvait Reference Name: Application of the RCA to private citizens and election candidates using mass telegrams Description: Your honor, I request clarification on the application of certain provisions of the Regional Communications Act as they pertain to the use of mass communications by private citizens and election candidates. Article 1, Section 1, Sub-Section D mentions the use of mass telegrams, which would certainly be directly visible by the region when residents and/or World Assembly nations of the South Pacific are tagged as recipients, Quote:(1) Modes of mass communication covered include Article 2, Section 2, Sub-Section E states, Quote:(2) Communications to the region shall not If I am to interpret this correctly, these provisions mean that private citizens and election candidates are prohibited from using mass telegrams to encourage or discourage a vote for a specific candidate. With this legal question, it is my hope for clarity on whether this is the case. Question: Does Article 2, Section 2, Sub-Section E of the Regional Communications Act apply to private citizens and election candidates using mass telegrams?
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 honor,
I believe that it is important for the High Court to hear this case because the subject in question can likely play a role in future elections where an election candidate or a private citizen on the behalf of an election candidate can purchase and use stamps to disseminate mass telegrams to tilt the election in favor or against a specific candidate. In such a scenario, this issue would be brought to the High Court to determine its legality under the Regional Communications Act. Therefore, I believe that an interpretation of the law is needed before such a scenario plays out.
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
The Court would like to ask the following questions to @Jay Coop and similarly invites any interested party to submit briefs amicus curiae with their own answers to these questions:
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 honor,
If I may say a few words to the Court, I think ultimately the intent behind who the act was to be applied to is quite clear. One not even need resort to the debates and the drafting, for it is right there in the text: Quote: The Act outright says it is meant to apply to government officials. Primarily, this dispute arises from what was perhaps an oversight in the phrasing of a particular amendment. The original version of the Act, passed in 2016, had one crucial difference it is definition of Article 1.1: Quote:(1) Modes of mass communication covered include It was only in an amendment in 2019 that "...using Regional Officer powers" was appended to Article Section 1.1(a). Thus, as originally written, Section 1.1(d) clearly referred to modes of communication not listed, thus explicitly excluding 1.1(d) from covering mass telegrams of any kind. In this version, the answer to the first half of this case is largely unambiguous. The aforementioned amendment restricted the scope of 1.1(a), limiting it to only a specific form of mass telegrams. Therefore, the answer to this case comes down to one question: Did the reduction of scope to Section 1.1(a) cause mass telegrams not sent by Regional Officers to fall under the scope of Section 1.1(d)? The answer to which I would argue is no. 1.1(d) was clearly not originally intended to cover mass telegrams in any form, and the change to 1.1(a) was evidently intended to exclude other mass telegrams from being covered by the Act. This is also further evidenced by the tagline of the Act itself, which established its intent to cover government officials specifically. (05-27-2020, 12:34 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Question: What leads you to believe that Article 1.1(d) refers to mass telegrams? Are there any arguments that might challenge that conclusion? My conclusion that Article 1.1(d) refers to mass telegrams is that, if a sender tags World Assembly nations and/or residents of the South Pacific, such communication makes it "directly visible on the NationStates website by the in-game region at large" because all World Assembly nations and/or residents of the South Pacific will see it when they check their telegram inbox. In Farengeto's amicus brief, he states that the tagline refers simply to government officials, presuming this only applies to said officials. I do not dispute that the tagline says this. However, Article 1.2 states: "Any individual capable of engaging in mass communication with the region as described above shall be subject to the regulations contained herein." I would believe that Article 1.2 makes election candidates and private citizens with the resources necessary to send mass telegrams subject to Article 1.1(d), regardless of status as a government official. Question: Does this suggestion take into account any provisions from the Charter related to the right to freedom of speech and expression? If so, are there any possible conflicts that would need to be addressed? Yes, your honor. However, freedom of speech and expression is not absolute and can be subject to fair and reasonable limitations, which is stated in Article III.1 of the Charter. I would believe that the restriction of the use of mass telegrams for particular purposes is one of those reasonable limitations.
Your honor,
I wish to submit an amicus curiae. I was active in the debate that added the phrase "using Regional Officer powers", and proposed the amendment that made it into law. At the time, I believed the law was unclear on whether it included mass telegrams via stamp. I believed, as I do now, that telegrams are not visible "at large", because they are not public, they are private to each individual's inbox, and it is possible for individuals to opt out of receiving external telegrams and therefore never be able to see the telegram.The amendment to add the phrase "using Regional Officer powers" was explicitly added in order to make it clear that the rules of the Regional Communications Act only applied to regional officers, not regular citizens.
The Court would like to ask these further questions to @Jay Coop:
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 (05-27-2020, 06:51 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Question: Would you say there is any difference between mass telegrams send through the use of Communications powers and those sent manual, through scripts or through stamps? In the context of the Regional Communications Act, I believe that the use of mass telegrams through the use of Communications powers are subject to Article 1.1(a). However, the difference in this context appears to be the application of clauses of the Act. I believe that a mass telegram is one where the recipient is "tag:WA", "region:the South Pacific", or some mixture of the two. In the case of mass telegrams sent by stamps, it is clear that this is not subject to Article 1.1(a) and instead Article 1.1(d). When it comes to scripts, I believe that this is essentially the same as tagging WA nations and/or residents of the South Pacific, subjecting it to the same regulations. Question: Would you consider restrictions on the contents of telegrams sent by private citizens to constitute "reasonable moderation policies"? Indeed, your honor. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |