| April 2022 Judicial Selection Process |
I suppose that’s a concern, but I would also argue that the point of the form is to help us (and the Cabinet) reach a good decision, and that includes asking for clarification when we need further information.
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
Election went well Griff - I think I'll probably have about the same amount of time for NS/TSP.
I'm happy with us asking them to re-do the Moot Court section. 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)
Comfed
-- You deemed case [LUMC.03] Review of the Ban of Bail Organa not justiciable due to the fact that "there is no such law as the 'RMB Moderation Act'; however, the scenario presumes the existence of such a law and includes an extract of this fictional law for your consideration. If you could, please consider again the case. If you find the question justiciable, please explain how you would rule on it and provide arguments to support your ruling. If you find the question not justiciable, please explain your reasons for it. The case is absolutely justiciable. There is a clear and compelling interest in resolving this case, as the fundamental right to free speech is at play here and the case is not otherwise frivolous. Article III (1) of the Charter states that "All members of the South Pacific will enjoy the freedoms of expression, speech, assembly, and the press, limited only by reasonable moderation policies." The question here is whether the action taken against Bail Organa constituted "reasonable moderation policies". One of the most important freedoms of expression in NationStates is freedom of speech as it pertains to NationStates politics. Such freedom is essential in a democratic region to ensure legitimate criticism, dissent, and the free flow of ideas and information is preserved. Without freedom of expression there can be no true democracy as there is no legitimate source of criticism. Freedom of expression is so important when it pertains to NationStates politics that restrictions on it must naturally be subject to a much higher standard then other speech. Restrictions on speech which pertain to NationStates politics must be justified to show that not restricting the speech would create a greater detriment to a democratic society than restricting it. In this case, restricting the speech of Bail Organa in this case is flagrant suppression of dissent - no matter whether it was justified, that is what is was. Any disruption brought upon by his speech must be extremely severe to justify restricting it. The Local Council's description is of use here. One of the first statements is that: "His initial posts were civil, but by the end of March 21 he was warned because he had riled up the RMB and many posters were calling Prime Minister Palpatine a dictator and talking of overthrowing the government. The discussion had crossed into dangerous ground and we had every right to eject the main perpetrator." I reject that there is any grounds to justify the suppression in this statement alone. "Riling up the RMB" is to be expected of anyone making anything beyond the mildest criticism of the government on that platform and restricting speech on those grounds is completely absurd. Additionally, RMBers calling the Prime Minister "a dictator" is a completely ridiculous cause for suppression of speech - while a harsh label, if individuals believe that their government officials are acting dictatorial then they have every right to say it. The one bit of concern is that some RMBers began plotting to overthrow the government - while this is concerning, it is by no means the fault of Bail Organa that their criticism of the Prime Minister (which, ironically, was rooted in upholding the Coalition of the South Pacific) that some chose to advocate for the forceful removal of the Coalition and the Local Council should consider applying scrutiny to them instead. The Local Council's breif goes on, however, to say: "We argue that Bail Organa had every right to criticise the government, but not to rile up the gameside community as he did with his biases and half-truths. His conduct was that of a troll and we had the duty to apply the RMB Moderation Act just as we would with any other nation that was engaging in a similar conduct." The riling up of the gameside community, as discussed previously, is not grounds for suppression of political speech. The assertion that Bail Organa did so with "biases and half-truths" is irrelevant - biases and particular interpretations of the facts are parts of argument which while oftentimes unfortunate are not at all grounds for suppression of speech - and shows a concerning tendency from the Local Council to apply their own subjective judgments on the merits of the argument itself in their decision to suppress the speech, and this is a judgment that has absolutely no place in the decision to restrict any speech, much less speech which pertains to NationStates politics. The LC finally states that the conduct of Bail Organa was that of a troll - that is, he acted in bad faith to provoke other members of the community. There is no evidence to back up that judgment. When it comes to restricting speech which pertains to NationStates politics, or indeed any speech, it is essential to justify why the speech should be suppressed rather than the other way around. In this case, one must enter with the assumption that Bail Organa acted in good faith until it can be shown otherwise, and in this case there is little to show that Bail Organa, a member of the Coalition in good standing, was not simply speaking his mind on a topic which he found to be particularly important. There is nothing to prove any malicious intent on his part, and so I reject the claim that "his conduct was that of a troll". To conclude, the Local Council has failed to adequately justify suppressing the political speech of Bail Organa in a way that is harmonious with the Charter. As such, I (assuming that I am the Court Devil) overturn his ban on the grounds that it violated his right to freedom of expression under Article III (1) of the Charter. The Haughtherlands -- You deemed case [LUMC.03] Review of the Ban of Bail Organa not justiciable due to "lack of evidence". Could you discuss the role of the Court in obtaining information; that is, whether the Court is an adversarial institution that receives evidence or an inquisitorial institution empowered to "go out" and obtain what evidence it needs to reach a fair conclusion? I personally adhere to a system where both parties provide evidence and the courts may also investigate for evidence. For instance on the case in question, neither party showed evidence of the actual events, only making claims of civil debate or riled up posts. In this case, the court may seek out the evidence. Even if the parties provided evidence, the court should validate them and seek extra, such as contextual evidence. In this case, the actual posts on the RMB should be sought out. Do you think there is merit in Organa's subsidiary request that the legality of Article 2, Section, Sub-Section B of the RMB Moderation Act be examined? How, if at all, would considering such an examination affect the possible ways in which you would have ruled on the case? I do believe that there is merit in Organa's request. It wouldn't affect my ruling. 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
I find that both of their follow-up answers are well-thought-out. I particularly like The Haughtherlands noting that the Court should be both adversarial and inquisitorial, reflecting how we generally operate.
I still recommend both candidates and maintain my (very) slight preference for Comfed. -Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016
I think both are reasonably qualified. The answers to the Moot Court leave just a tab bit to be desired but I don’t think any issues are so insurmountable that they would affect both applicants’ qualifications, at least in my view. I think a Well Qualified is warranted for both, but I’m open to arguments to the contrary.
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
I think both candidates are Qualified, but wouldn't rank either as Well Qualified.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
Any particular reason for that?
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
I think Well Qualified should be reserved for applicants who are so clearly suitable, knowledgeable and experienced that not appointing them would be an act of collective madness - for example Roavin, Glen or yourself. I think The Haughtherlands and Comfed are both fine candidates but not in that tier.
If we had a fourth classification - Not Qualified, Qualified, Well Qualified, Exceptionally Qualified - I'd be happy with upping the level. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
I don’t know if I’d go so far as to call a lack of appointment a “collective madness”, but I would generally agree that Well Qualified applicants would need little to no training. If that’s our standard then I could be convinced to go with Qualified.
Griffindor? 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
Marking them as Qualified is fine by me.
I think Bel's fourth-tier idea would be useful for future appointments. -Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016 |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES ![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |