| [1712.HQ] Citizen Participation in Election Campaigns |
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 discussion on justiciability took place in this thread.
How are we in terms of availability for this case? 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'm going to be honest, the lack of response is annoying. If I'm asking about everyone's availability then I expect everyone to say whether or not they are available to be presiding or secondary. Otherwise I'll just got ahead and assign the case regardless of how unavailable any of you might be.
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
My apologies.
I can be either presiding or secondary, though I would prefer to be unassigned due to my previous vote against taking up the case due to its length of time since its original introduction. -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
Noted. Unless anyone has any objections I'd suggest myself and Roavin as assigned Justices. If this is agreeable, I'd like to let @Roavin decide whether to be presiding or secondary.
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 have no issues with being either primary or secondary.
![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
You were the main voice arguing in favour of this case's justiciability, so I think it's only fair that we make this your first case as presiding. I'd be happy to act as secondary.
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
Alright, I'll take a stab in the next few days.
Took me longer than a few days, but c'est la vie. My thoughts are as follows:
This does not violate the freedom of speech clause. Freedom of speech means that it's permissible to say things without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. It does not mean that all speech can be said everywhere. (I could note as an example profanity laws used for television, though that goes outside of the realm of NationStates, theoretically, so I don't know if I want to use that example). Their freedom of speech wasn't violated because there are numerous other avenues (such as RMB, Discord, other parts of the forum, etc.) where questions and comments can be raised by any resident. There are a few places in our laws that deal with forum permissions (Criminal Code 1.3, Political Parties Act 3.3, Proscription Act 4.4). Those alone imply that not all fora are readable by all. Proscription Act 4.4 (which didn't exist at the time of submission), as well as some older iterations of the CC (which did) also imply that not all fora must be writable by all. There is no general restriction on what can or can't be open to non-Legislator residents, and the open language in CC 1.3 supports that argument. I disagree with Glen's argument that only Legislators have a right - I don't think even they have a right to post in campaign threads necessarily, only to view them, based on the law at hand: Elections Act specifies campaign threads with COIs that must be posted and that the Assembly may debate their platforms, which means Legislators must be able to view them, but under the same interpretation the Election Commissioner could, for example, say that campaign threads stay pristine, and the Assembly should debate the merits of the candidates in other threads. Tsu's point is a good one - if this did violate free speech, we wouldn't be able to impose any forum restrictions, and that goes against several extant laws and would also simply be absurd (the golden rule)! And so, the ruling would be: This doesn't violate free speech. The law only requires that the Assembly (i.e. Legislators) have the ability to debate the merits of their platform, though this doesn't need to be in campaign threads. And non-Legislator members have ample places to ask questions or post comments elsewhere without fear of retribution, if the location of that debate is not in a place they can access. What do you think, Kris?
I think it's worth remembering that the case arose out of a situation where prospective candidates were prevented from posting their campaigns in the Election Central before nominations actually opened, mostly so the opinion frames the case in the proper context. That said, I broadly agree that this is mostly an organisational issue and that no speech would truly be suppressed or violated. I think this is a good starting point for an actual opinion.
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 |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |