So two important things came out of HCLA1501.


First, the court argued that even though we deliberately removed the "reasonable restrictions" clause to prevent the court from continuing to argue that everything under the sun should be banned as 'common sense' - they've gone and argued once again that it's just 'common sense' that these 'restrictions' apply to freedom of expression without any such reference to the law.

Then the court in the most unusual fashion compared hate speech with forced apologies. *shakes his fist* As if forced apologies served the same public interest as banning hate speech....

Quote:On the matter of the absolutility of the freedom of speech and thought as the Petitioner has proposed, it is in the opinion of the Court that while these freedoms are protected in the Bill of Rights, and despite the removal of the 'reasonable restrictions' clause, it is through the use of common sense, that the Justice believes every member of the community does possess, that there are still inherent restrictions on what one can or should say. 

This is particularly so with regards to hate or offensive speech, threats or otherwise the repeated use of insinuating remarks that is derogatory or may cause offense to another player or group of people, of which the Administrative Team possesses the absolute authority to pursue further actions, including bans, as a preventive measure before the matter escalates further, as has been enshrined in Administrative Policy.

Second, the court suggested that it might be best to return to the law on Conduct violations because our current position on them is pretty harsh, plus a return would mean getting rid of these silly forced apologies.

Quote:Furthermore, upon further consideration, the Court believes that the current law for conduct violations does not force an apology, but instead allows the individual to return should (s)he apologise. However, the Court also resolves that an immediate banning from the region is rather excessive and disproportionate to the offence. 

What's interesting is the court has actually said that from now on conduct violations should be handled by the appropriate authorities. 

Quote:In light of the above, the Court resolves that any Conduct Violations, defined as a violation of in-game NationStates rules, should be resolved by the appropriate authorities: the Administrative Team if the offence is conducted on the forums, and the NationStates Moderation if the offence is conducted in-game. With regards to Regional Message Board spam or 'adspam', the Court resolves that the Delegate possesses the authority to suppress such posts and eject the relevant nation as appropriate, should the Delegate see fit to do so.

The Court also recommends that the Assembly strike down Articles 5.1.10 and 5.2.2 of the Code of Laws, thus relinquishing the power of the Court on conduct violations to the appropriate authorities, and the meting of penalties in accordance with the appropriate documents, as stated above. Notwithstanding the above, the High Court still retains the power to hear appeals on excessive moderation in accordance with Article 5, Section 5 of the Charter, in relation to offences conducted on the forums, whereas appeals can be made to NationStates Moderation in relation to offences conducted in-game, which the Court has no jurisdiction over.

So, unless I'm interpreting this incorrectly, Justice Awe is saying he is forfeiting the Court's ability to hear conduct violation (except appeals) cases altogether. (???) So that's a thing... if that's the case, striking Article 5.1.10 and 5.2.2 is a clerical task, because the courts aren't going hear those cases anymore anyways, even though they're supposed to in law.

I'm not so sure I agree with the courts on this part of the ruling either; the moderators are sometimes very slow about getting rid of conduct violators. I know in my time in the Guard in the NPO, you could count on ten new nations in the region, a week, advocating rape in their mottos. I don't think we need to wait for the moderators to remove them from the region.

Well, we did remove public apologies from the Penal Code, though they could still rule that one be issued at their discretion.

I posted in the relevant thread that I believed including a recommendation on Conduct Violations was way beyond the scope of the appeal ruling. The Court had to rule on the question of apologies as part of our criminal justice system. Conduct Violations had only been tangentially mentioned as an example in the original ruling, not as a main part of the answer to the legal question. I was not entirely comfortable with seeing the Court issue such a broad ruling, regardless of how legally binding the recommendation might be. I believe appeals should simply address the ruling being appealed, not issue broad recommendations that do not really answer the question.

Then the answer is simple. This is the Assembly, so legislate something better and clearer. Our legal system was never designed for the breadth of scrutiny it has been getting recently. It's not a conflict of legislation that is often the issue but the absence of detail in the legislation. In fact, if I'm remembering correctly all three Chair of the Assembly Candidates campaigned on reform.

You don't want apologies as a judicial sanction? Fine. We have a lovely shiney set of crimes but absolutely no legislation relating to a range of sanctions because... well I'm not sure why.  In this absence the Court has done the best it can.

We can all be negative and destructive but here's a radical new idea... perhaps we can try and be constructive? I'd like to be think we could because I'm getting sick of the constant air of negativity around here.

The complaint seems to be that the Court addressed an issue it wasn't required to address, making a policy recommendation that wasn't necessary to reach an opinion.

Quote:Section 2 - Penal Code
1. If found guilty of an act of treason, the offending nation will be immediately banned from the in-game region and offsite forums.
2. Conduct violations are punishable by immediate ejection and banishment from the region, albeit punished parties may appeal this decision to the court. In most cases, nations that appeal the decision and apologize should expect to have their ban lifted after receiving punishment from the site moderation.
3. If found guilty of any other crime listed above, the Judiciary will determine a sentence. The sentence must be proportionate to the offense.

(03-29-2015, 08:40 AM)Hopolis Wrote: Then the answer is simple. This is the Assembly, so legislate something better and clearer. Our legal system was never designed for the breadth of scrutiny it has been getting recently. It's not a conflict of legislation that is often the issue but the absence of detail in the legislation. In fact, if I'm remembering correctly all three Chair of the Assembly Candidates campaigned on reform.

You don't want apologies as a judicial sanction? Fine. We have a lovely shiney set of crimes but absolutely no legislation relating to a range of sanctions because... well I'm not sure why.  In this absence the Court has done the best it can.

We can all be negative and destructive but here's a radical new idea... perhaps we can try and be constructive? I'd like to be think we could because I'm getting sick of the constant air of negativity around here.

It's a weird position to be in because the courts are under high scrutiny and so much about what they should and can do is unclear. I hope we can figure out and delineate what we expect and give the courts the power to do and what then goes to the Assembly or where the clear lines of action are.

(03-29-2015, 01:28 PM)Unibot Wrote:

Quote:Section 2 - Penal Code
1. If found guilty of an act of treason, the offending nation will be immediately banned from the in-game region and offsite forums.
2. Conduct violations are punishable by immediate ejection and banishment from the region, albeit punished parties may appeal this decision to the court. In most cases, nations that appeal the decision and apologize should expect to have their ban lifted after receiving punishment from the site moderation.
3. If found guilty of any other crime listed above, the Judiciary will determine a sentence. The sentence must be proportionate to the offense.

Assuming the definition of "immediate" hasn't changed, I think the part in blue is unnecessary. How can one appeal an immediate act by the administration before such action is taken?

No....

A Timeline of Events

- Person has committed conflict violations. Let's say their motto is "Kill the __Ethnic Group Here___!"
- Ejected and banned for conflict violations.
- The mods respond to the report of conflict violations - perhaps they slap him on the wrist and change his motto.
- Now at any time, that person can appeal the decision to ban him in TSP.

The reason why I argued that banning a person for conduct violations is excessive is because conduct violations do vary in severity. There is a distinct difference in severity between 'slap on the wrist' motto changing and outright 'thou shalt be ejected' banning from the region. I feel as if there's a need for a balance between the two extremes