Gaspo
TNPer
May it please the court,
Upon review of the relevant sections of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Legal Code, I feel compelled to call into question the constitutionality of Legal Code Chapter 1 Section 1.3.8, defining Sedition as a crime. This section is reproduced below, followed by relevant excerpts from the Bill of Rights.
The first quote outlines the definition of Sedition. This definition fails to qualify as constitutional. Leaving aside the inherent silliness of suggesting that there exists some constitutionally sanctioned means of inciting revolt, the law effectively criminalizes speech which voices opinions and beliefs which exist in contradiction with the established government of the region.
We have established within the Bill of Rights that free speech is to be protected, and even promoted, by the government. Yet the Sedition law punishes speech which opposes the government. The law as written would allow punishment of individuals who oppose the government in a non-sanctioned way. The law is so broad that it can be used to punish an individual who makes speeches which oppose the established government. This could be used to impact elections and suppress disagreement within the region. Explicit actions against the government are easily covered by the existing Treason law, which criminalizes acts. To distinguish between that law and this one, therefore, requires that this law punish speech.
Our Bill of Rights protects free speech, and requires the government to encourage such speech. It also notes that no governmental authority (even the RA) has the authority to disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. Given that the Constitution’s very first article establishes the Bill of Rights as a part of said Constitution, the Regional Assembly which voted the Legal Code into law, was not authorized, Constitutionally, to enact a law restricting or punishing speech. The law should not have been enacted, because it is only distinguishable from the existing Treason law in that it punishes Speech, whereas Treason punishes actions. Such a distinction renders this law unconstitutional, as free speech must not only be protected but must be promoted by the government.
In light of the issues raised above, in conjunction with any other briefs on the matter which may be submitted, I humbly request that the court review the constitutionality of Legal Code Chapter 1 Section 1.3.8, defining Sedition as a criminal act.
Upon review of the relevant sections of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Legal Code, I feel compelled to call into question the constitutionality of Legal Code Chapter 1 Section 1.3.8, defining Sedition as a crime. This section is reproduced below, followed by relevant excerpts from the Bill of Rights.
Legal Code Chapter 1 Section 1.3.8:
Bill of Rights (in part):
The first quote outlines the definition of Sedition. This definition fails to qualify as constitutional. Leaving aside the inherent silliness of suggesting that there exists some constitutionally sanctioned means of inciting revolt, the law effectively criminalizes speech which voices opinions and beliefs which exist in contradiction with the established government of the region.
We have established within the Bill of Rights that free speech is to be protected, and even promoted, by the government. Yet the Sedition law punishes speech which opposes the government. The law as written would allow punishment of individuals who oppose the government in a non-sanctioned way. The law is so broad that it can be used to punish an individual who makes speeches which oppose the established government. This could be used to impact elections and suppress disagreement within the region. Explicit actions against the government are easily covered by the existing Treason law, which criminalizes acts. To distinguish between that law and this one, therefore, requires that this law punish speech.
Our Bill of Rights protects free speech, and requires the government to encourage such speech. It also notes that no governmental authority (even the RA) has the authority to disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. Given that the Constitution’s very first article establishes the Bill of Rights as a part of said Constitution, the Regional Assembly which voted the Legal Code into law, was not authorized, Constitutionally, to enact a law restricting or punishing speech. The law should not have been enacted, because it is only distinguishable from the existing Treason law in that it punishes Speech, whereas Treason punishes actions. Such a distinction renders this law unconstitutional, as free speech must not only be protected but must be promoted by the government.
In light of the issues raised above, in conjunction with any other briefs on the matter which may be submitted, I humbly request that the court review the constitutionality of Legal Code Chapter 1 Section 1.3.8, defining Sedition as a criminal act.
