Amendment of the Sct. 4 "Election Fraud", TNP Law 22. Legal Code.

unibot

unibot

TNPer
In response to -An Elephant-'s willingness to pretend to represent the region, I'd like to propose an amendment to Sct. 4 of Law 22 of the Legal Code.

Original:

Section 4: Election Fraud
A - "Election fraud" is defined as the willful deception of voters or residents of The North Pacific with regards to the candidates running, the time and venue of the elections, or the requirements and methods by which one may be eligible to vote or run for office.
Click to expand...

Amended:

Section 4: Fraud
A - "Election fraud" is defined as the willful deception of voters or residents of The North Pacific with regards to the candidates running, the time and venue of the elections, or the requirements and methods by which one may be eligible to vote or run for office.
B - "Impersonation" is defined as behavior that fraudulently assumes or acts the character of an extant or former nation or otherwise fraudulently pretends to represent any part or whole of The North Pacific and its government.
Click to expand...

Please discuss. :)
 
Doesn't the law against Sedition possibly already cover this?

Might be sensible, but are they definitively impersonating? I think they're just sending messages with an official tone, without claiming to be a government official.
 
-An Elephant-:
I send you this message on behalf of the North Pacific and her laws.
Click to expand...
Do you know of anyone who can speak on behalf of the North Pacific or her laws without being elected or appointed to some position? Because I certainly don't. *whistles*

A defamation law might also be pertinent to this discussion since -An Elephant- lied and said you were breaking our laws.
 
I think they are impersonating government officials, whether they explicitly state it or not, it is implied in their telegrams. Something needs to be done to prevent this from constantly happening over and over again. I would support this amendment.
 
My initial impression is that this wouldn't be a bad idea, though I am now trying to think of ways in which, at least as currently written, it could be abused just be to safe. Nothing immediately comes to mind other than a really literal interpretation criminalizing satirical parody and what not.
 
Eluvatar:
I'll add this to the Revamp of the Legal Code :noangel:
Click to expand...
We might as well put forth the Amendment now instead of tying it with the whole revamp since there appears to be some need for it if this whole controversy begins again.

Any other comments from the floor?
 
Gulliver:
Nothing immediately comes to mind other than a really literal interpretation criminalizing satirical parody and what not.
Click to expand...
The additions of the word, "fraudulently" should suffice to avoid that interpretation. Fraud is more malicious than satire, it implies intentional deception for personal gain or to damage another individual.
 
Yes, I know, my apologies. Work got real busy out on the floor lately.

I am trying to get caught up on this. I have asked the Speaker Pro Tempore Grosseschnauzer to help out so if I will not be able to get around to it today, Assemblyman Unibot, he will at least. Fair?
 
Yep, I don't care so long as it gets to vote soon and the process it takes to get to vote is legal. :P We're preparing for a repeat of this issue that could happen at any time, I'd rather like to get it on the books quickly. :)
 
Gulliver:
My initial impression is that this wouldn't be a bad idea, though I am now trying to think of ways in which, at least as currently written, it could be abused just be to safe. Nothing immediately comes to mind other than a really literal interpretation criminalizing satirical parody and what not.
Click to expand...
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Specifically, as I understand it, someone can't be prosecuted for any crime that is not specifically listed in the legal code.

That said, Rm. Elephant Poop or whatever his name is could be construed as engaging in seditious behavior, but that determination alone may or may not lead to a slippery slope of censorship as a political tool. Almost anything can be construed as 'sedition' with enough tortuous logic and determination on the part of those who wish it so. If he is representing himself on the RMB as a government official, it could be construed as an attempt at inciting a coup based upon his fraudulent claim of being a 'government official'.

OTOH, his effect is null and void, and possibly satirical at best (or worst as the case may be).

Any law that has the effect of criminalizing satirical parody is censorship and the end of free speech.

As such, I say ignore the twerp or make a joke of him and he will go away. And the best part is that we don't have to make a law to do that.


Addendum:

B - "Impersonation" is defined as behavior that fraudulently assumes or acts the character of an extant or former nation or otherwise fraudulently pretends to represent any part or whole of The North Pacific and its government.
Click to expand...

Since a nation in TNP is part of TNP then they cannot fraudulently represent themselves as 'any part' of TNP.

The wording of item B is flawed and ironically impossible since such and offender, being in TNP would by necessity be automatically representing a 'part' as in 'any part' of TNP and therefore we are all criminals without recourse to the law. It's not a good idea to criminalize the whole of the region. :duh:

May I suggest this wording:

B - "Impersonation" is defined as behavior that fraudulently purports, assumes or acts the character or capacity of an extant or former nation or otherwise fraudulently pretends to represent any part or whole of The North Pacific and its government the Government of The North Pacific or persons thereof, or to impersonate any other person or nation..
Click to expand...

That would more accurately define the offense in keeping with common law and legal code, since presumably impersonating another individual or nation is already an offense and if not, it should be. And let's try to avoid any application of new laws in a retroactive fashion which would constitution an abomination in moral terms.
 
Romanoffia:
Gulliver:
My initial impression is that this wouldn't be a bad idea, though I am now trying to think of ways in which, at least as currently written, it could be abused just be to safe. Nothing immediately comes to mind other than a really literal interpretation criminalizing satirical parody and what not.
Click to expand...
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Specifically, as I understand it, someone can't be prosecuted for any crime that is not specifically listed in the legal code.

That said, Rm. Elephant Poop or whatever his name is could be construed as engaging in seditious behavior, but that determination alone may or may not lead to a slippery slope of censorship as a political tool. Almost anything can be construed as 'sedition' with enough tortuous logic and determination on the part of those who wish it so. If he is representing himself on the RMB as a government official, it could be construed as an attempt at inciting a coup based upon his fraudulent claim of being a 'government official'.

OTOH, his effect is null and void, and possibly satirical at best (or worst as the case may be).

Any law that has the effect of criminalizing satirical parody is censorship and the end of free speech.

As such, I say ignore the twerp or make a joke of him and he will go away. And the best part is that we don't have to make a law to do that.


Addendum:

B - "Impersonation" is defined as behavior that fraudulently assumes or acts the character of an extant or former nation or otherwise fraudulently pretends to represent any part or whole of The North Pacific and its government.
Click to expand...

Since a nation in TNP is part of TNP then they cannot fraudulently represent themselves as 'any part' of TNP.

The wording of item B is flawed and ironically impossible since such and offender, being in TNP would by necessity be automatically representing a 'part' as in 'any part' of TNP and therefore we are all criminals without recourse to the law. It's not a good idea to criminalize the whole of the region. :duh:

May I suggest this wording:

B - "Impersonation" is defined as behavior that fraudulently purports, assumes or acts the character or capacity of an extant or former nation or otherwise fraudulently pretends to represent any part or whole of The North Pacific and its government the Government of The North Pacific or persons thereof, or to impersonate any other person or nation..
Click to expand...

That would more accurately define the offense in keeping with common law and legal code, since presumably impersonating another individual or nation is already an offense and if not, it should be. And let's try to avoid any application of new laws in a retroactive fashion which would constitution an abomination in moral terms.

Oh, and make it an entirely separate law so that it can be applied beyond just election fraud, thus making impersonation a criminal offense as a whole across the entire spectrum.
Click to expand...
 
I'm been updating a googledoc spreadhseet of the RA membership so votes can be counted, and I found some issues.
The next step for me will open this vote, and one other; then I'll get to the counting of closed votes during the day Wednesday (my time.)
 
Have you tried the xls format from Micro$loth?

You just program in an equation to add, subtract and give you a final tally in one fell swoop. You could probably integrate it into a given voting thread if you could get people to use the proper vote terms uniformly.
 
Roman these are two spreadsheets that were already set up and being used at googledoc. And there are a lot of links that have to be inserted from the forums and nationstates.net that are used to check activity and so forth.

Then some of that information is used on a second document to track votes and participation (the two-vote activity rule). It hadn't been kept current since Limi resigned, so I had to not only update those two spreadsheets, but I also had to complete the list in the Registration area that Govindia hadn't quite completed. (Necessary so I knew what number is quorum for these current votes.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top