| [PASSED] Amendment to Article VIII of the Charter (High Court's mandate) |
|
This proposed amendment originates from a discussion on judicial review of regional proscriptions.
While the High Court is described in the Charter as the 'supreme judicial authority for the Coalition'. The specific language used to define its jurisdiction appears to contradict the broad scope provided for it. I think we would be well served if we removed any ambiguity about its power to conduct its affairs. Charter, VIII. The High Court Wrote:4. The High Court has the power to declare any general law or, regulation, Cabinet directive, Chair determination, and Local Council law or regulation, or any other official act of government, in whole or in part, void upon a determination that it violates the terms of this Charter or any other constitutional law.
If anything I’d like to see the language be even broader, so that the Court can consider BoR violations by Moderation and/or Admin; I realise that we don’t want to “politicise” such, but there is signifigant scope and precedent for the relevant teams to act in a manner that infringes on the BoR and isn’t covered by “reasonable moderation policies.”
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)
The Assembly has a review period for all forum rules submitted to it. If they think it infringes on free speech, that’s where the debate should happen.
Do not involve the Courts in forum administration, period. That is a tempest that will tear the region apart the moment the Court tries to become a substitute forum administrator. For example, Unibot’s ban! It was 100% illegal. We didn’t follow our set rules. We didn’t allow appeal. Tsu basically said, “Fuck that, I have a duty no matter what our rules or laws say, and I’m going to fulfill.” Yet if the Court can get involved in administration matters, then Unibot has a right to appeal and that appeal will certainly be successful. There are plenty of other situations where people will challenge what it “reasonable” administration. And nobody here can say with certainty that what the Court calls unreasonable actually is unreasonable. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think the Forum Administration is part of the government...?
Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)
Local Council Member(April 24-August 11) Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7)
(11-15-2018, 09:19 AM)Belschaft Wrote: If anything I’d like to see the language be even broader, so that the Court can consider BoR violations by Moderation and/or Admin; It's established best practice across NS that moderation has absolutely nothing to do with IC government, and for very good reason. This would be taking a step backward. ![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
I’m under no illusion that the idea of subjected moderation/admin to the Court is going to be a popular idea, but I stopped caring if my ideas were popular a long time ago.
Personally I’ve always felt that the lack of oversight in those areas is problematic, and that having an option between “do nothing” and “try and move forums/exert huge political pressure” would be healthy. The idea that moderation and administration are immune to error, corruption or malpractice, and that there shouldn’t be a legal mechanism to do something about issues with them, is wrongheaded. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator (11-15-2018, 09:45 AM)Ryccia Wrote: I don't think the Forum Administration is part of the government...? I don't believe so. The amendment, as it is, only affects the IC component of our game. If others feel that judicial oversight should be applied to moderation, they should propose an amendment stating as such.
For me, the proposed wording raises the question as to whether the Local council suppressing a post on RMB is an official act of the government?
Whilst the LC elsewhere has power to self determination on local issues, it is classed as government in the charter. Removing the clarity of LC law or regulation, in my mind opens up a slew of potentially time consuming complaints on 'actions' and vexatious complaint charges? (11-27-2018, 02:40 AM)Beepee Wrote: For me, the proposed wording raises the question as to whether the Local council suppressing a post on RMB is an official act of the government? I'm inclined to say yes. Article II, Section 2, of the Charter states: Quote:2. Authority and legitimacy is held jointly by the region and the forum, and the union between the two is what defines the Coalition. No illegitimate invader or usurper of the region shall be recognized. I believe the Local Council clearly constitutes a part of the government. As to the impact this may have on the High Court and its workload, the Local Council could perhaps come to an alternate arrangement to handle these disputes, with the more contentious of such issues being heard in the High Court. (11-27-2018, 02:49 AM)Amerion Wrote:(11-27-2018, 02:40 AM)Beepee Wrote: For me, the proposed wording raises the question as to whether the Local council suppressing a post on RMB is an official act of the government?  But wouldn't any 'alternative arrangement' then fall foul of the very wording proposed, where the High Court would find in whole or in part, void upon a determination that it violates the terms of this Charter or any other constitutional law. Unless the LC were to pass a LC law as constitutional law? |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |