Re: Article 1 of the Bill of Rights and Sct. 7.1.4

[unibot]

Could the Court please consider whether Article 1 of the Bill of Rights conflicts with Sct. 7.1.4., in the context of National Flags?

If yes:

1) Is this because Nations have the sovereign freedom to determine their own National Flag?

2) Does this right to self-determination apply also to avatars on the forum or signatures on the forum?

If no, please explain why there is no conflict.

Relevant Laws:

1. All Nations of The North Pacific are sovereign. Each Nation has the right of self-determination in that Nation's domestic policies, including, but not limited to, issue selection and WA membership.

4. The arms of the North Pacific may not be used except to represent the North Pacific or an official regional entity.

 

[Hileville]

The Court will review this matter. If anyone would like to submit an amicus curiae brief they are welcome over the next 48 hours.

 

[unibot]

May I remind the Court of this Reference Case?

 

[Hileville]

Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​

In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Unibot on Potential Confliction of the Bill of Rights and Legal Code in regards to National Flags​

The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Unibot.

The Court took into consideration the Relevant section of the Bill of Rights and Legal Code of the North Pacific:

1. All Nations of The North Pacific are sovereign. Each Nation has the right of self-determination in that Nation's domestic policies, including, but not limited to, issue selection and WA membership.

4. The arms of the North Pacific may not be used except to represent the North Pacific or an official regional entity.

The Court opines the following:

The Court has before it a question examining a potential conflict between Article 1 of the Bill of Rights, and Legal Code Chapter 7.1.4. The question specifically addresses national flags. The Court finds that there is no conflict, and finds that Legal Code Chapter 7.1.4 does not violate the Constitution or Bill of Rights, in spirit or in letter.

The Bill of Rights’ protections of national sovereignty state, and are intended to clarify, that the Government of The North Pacific may not direct the management of the nations in a proactive way. The law at hand restricts use of the Coat of Arms to use by government officials or the government as a whole. The Court does not believe that a conflict exists here, and draws on a number of analogies to explain this position:

• It is perfectly reasonable for a government to restrict the use of official letterhead, because its appearance conveys significance and meaning indicating that the document conveyed on that letterhead is an official communication. The letterhead bestows formality and legitimacy, In effect, and as such must be restricted. While free expression is important, that free expression would undermine the very purpose and utility of the letterhead, and as such must be restrained.
• Diplomatic license plates are issued only to diplomats, and confer special privileges upon those who possess them. As such, their use is restricted to a small subset of individuals. This is perfectly reasonable, as those plates convey additional authority and certain distinctions, and as such must be controlled.
• Governments often restrict access to police uniforms, because the uniform is a de facto symbol of power and authority. Symbols or icons which convey authority or are held to indicate some official status must be controlled, or they lose all validity as an official symbol.

Many other examples are available, such as military uniforms, symbols of authority (legislative gavels, for example), and unique titles of position. The Arms of The North Pacific are the only means which the government has reserved to allow it to convey a degree of official recognition upon statements, posts, and other documents, to separate them from ordinary documents. This is far from an unreasonable or illegal action for a government to take.

As a side note, if any nation is truly enamored with the Arms, and simply must have the Arms as a part of its flag, The Court directs that nation to Legal Code Chapter 7.1.5, which establishes the official Flag of The North Pacific, a flag whose use is not restricted in the same way as the Arms.

 

[unibot]

I must dissent, a mere use of the Coat of Arms does not convey enough information to express legitimacy. People can now be tried in The North Pacific, with no concern for their right to self-determination over their flag, because the justices believe that it is reasonable to assume that a certain arrangement of pixels in their flag is the proper method of identifying one's political legitimacy.

I question whether McMasterdonia is even delegate of the region; why isn't he flying our Coat of Arms? Our dignified and honorable justices have already concluded that the arms is where the legitimacy lies. If my first right is going to be limited by this unreasonable withdrawal, he better be putting that intrusion of our fundamental freedoms to good use and actually identifying himself as the head of state using the Coat of Arms. Oh.. wait, yeah, that's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard uttered from a Chief Justice. This isn't a letterhead to any document, it's a flag of a nation that resides in The North Pacific -- your examples are not salient, convincing or relevant. If someone is flying the Coat of Arms on their nation's flag and your first assumption is, "oh he must work for the government", that is a logical misstep not presupposed by any reasonable person.

Thank you for your time.

- Uni

 

[Hileville]

This discussion is over with.