Users browsing this thread:

~~Unibot~~ · 01-19-2015, 04:29 PM

An observation of my research on Freedom of Speech in the GCRs was that our Freedom of Speech has actually been curtailed quite a lot by the Great Council of 2013, unintentionally.

First, the Bill of Rights prior to the 2013 Great Council covered the following,

Quote:“ 1. All citizens are entitled to the freedom of thought, belief, and opinion.
2. All citizens are entitled to the freedom of expression, including the freedom of press,
notwithstanding expression be considered unjustifiable as per the Criminal Code.
3. All citizens are entitled to the freedom of peaceful assembly.
4. All citizens are entitled to the freedom of association.”

Meanwhile, the 2013 Great Council's new reading only covered a limited form of the Freedom of Expression. In fact, there was a least one legal reference case where a justice suggested that there was no Freedom of Association anymore in TSP.

Furthermore, there is a limiting clause which was included in the 2013 Great Council's reading by accident. Kringalia had intended to remove it, but it ended up appearing in the final text by accident. This mistake has allowed future justices to almost render the clause non-consequential so long as the Assembly supports the curtailment of free speech. For these reasons, the "Reasonable Restrictions" clause is very problematic.

My hope is that this new proposed text will return TSP to the wide range of constitutional protection of rights which we enjoyed prior to the 2013 Great Council, by removing the "Reasonable Restrictions" clause and widening the clause to including an umbrella of rights related to Free Speech.

Quote:Article 2: Bill of Rights.

1. Nations that reside in The South Pacific shall be afforded all rights contemplated in this article unless otherwise noted.
2. The freedom to voice their opinions on all matter of their interest, including the peaceful criticism of the Coalition and its government, on both the Forum and the Regional Message Board, subject to reasonable restrictions established by the Assembly that do not violate the spirit of the Charter.
2. The Freedom of Speech, Expression, Press, Thought, Opinion, Belief, Conscience, Association and Peaceful Assembly.
[...]

(This post was last modified: 01-19-2015, 05:29 PM by Sandwich Territories.)

Darkstrait · 01-19-2015, 04:36 PM

Hear, hear!

Darkstrait :ninja:

Former Justice, Former Local Councilor, Roleplayer, Former SPSF Deputy for Recruitment, Politically Active Citizen, Ex-Spammer Supreme, and Resident Geek

"Hats is very fashion this year."

RP Info

***Kris Kringle*** · 01-19-2015, 04:36 PM

I like the idea, but I don't like the list format in your proposal. I'm not really sure how to fix it, but I wanted to say 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

~~Unibot~~ · 01-19-2015, 05:31 PM

We could break it down into three categories,

2. Freedom of Speech, including the Freedom of Expression and the Press.
3. Freedom of Thought, including the Freedom of Belief, Opinion and Conscience.
4. Freedom of Association, including the Freedom of Peaceful Assembly.

I just thought my initial proposal was a bit more condensed and to the point.

**Belschaft** · 01-19-2015, 07:58 PM

Take away the reasonable restrictions clause and libel, slander and defamation all become legal.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

Hopolis · 01-19-2015, 08:01 PM

I think both suggestions represent an improvement over the current wording. If I had to pick one it would be:

Quote:2. Freedom of Speech, including the Freedom of Expression and the Press.
3. Freedom of Thought, including the Freedom of Belief, Opinion and Conscience.
4. Freedom of Association, including the Freedom of Peaceful Assembly.

It's more wordy admittedly but I think it has a nice punch and highlights the key virtues of speech, thought and association.

I do have one question... does anything in this or the existing Charter or Code of Laws restrict hate language?

***Kris Kringle*** · 01-19-2015, 08:02 PM

(01-19-2015, 07:58 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Take away the reasonable restrictions clause and libel, slander and defamation all become legal.

The reasonable restrictions clause has nothing to do with those, nor was it written with that in mind. It was written to provide for the suppression of adspam, before we noticed that the Charter already had a provision for it.

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

**Belschaft** · 01-19-2015, 08:14 PM

(01-19-2015, 08:02 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:
(01-19-2015, 07:58 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Take away the reasonable restrictions clause and libel, slander and defamation all become legal.

The reasonable restrictions clause has nothing to do with those, nor was it written with that in mind. It was written to provide for the suppression of adspam, before we noticed that the Charter already had a provision for it.

Regardless of intent, that is nevertheless the result. A qualifying statement of some form is needed unless you want to undercut our libel laws. The proposed language provides an unlimited right.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Kris Kringle*** · 01-19-2015, 08:16 PM

Our Criminal Code existed long before that clause. Again, neither is related to the other.

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

~~Unibot~~ · 01-19-2015, 09:11 PM

Quote:Take away the reasonable restrictions clause and libel, slander and defamation all become legal.

Except those are criminal crimes.

Furthermore, we don't even enforce libel, slander or defamation anyways. When you were caught red-handed committing defamation against Hileville that court case went nowhere - not sure it even began. We might as well not enforce it at all and just shout people down when they lie about each other.

Libel laws, anyways, seriously would undermine our parliament if they were actually enforced. Most forum communication is in parliament and parliaments in RL generally are not applicable for libel laws. I imagine the libel laws were your creation to try to nail people you didn't like. -_-

(This post was last modified: 01-19-2015, 09:14 PM by Sandwich Territories.)