Request for Review: Constitutionality of the Sedition Law

Gaspo

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.
Legal Code Chapter 1 Section 1.3.8:
8. "Sedition" is defined as an intentional attempt to incite the Nations of The North Pacific to revolt in a manner not sanctioned by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
Bill of Rights (in part):
. . .
2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region.
. . .
11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. . . .
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Gaspo on the Constitutionality of the Sedition Law​

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

The Court took into consideration the Relevant Section of the Legal Code of the North Pacific:
Section 1.3: Sedition:
8. "Sedition" is defined as an intentional attempt to incite the Nations of The North Pacific to revolt in a manner not sanctioned by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
The Court took into consideration the Relevant Sections of the Bill of Rights of the North Pacific:
Section 2 and 11 of the Bill of Rights:
2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.

11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
The Court also took into consideration the Constitution of the North Pacific.

The Court opines the following:

The Sedition Law defines Sedition as "an intentional attempt to incite the Nations of The North Pacific to revolt in a manner not sanctioned by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights".

The Bill of Rights establishes that each Nation has the right to free speech and that that right cannot be infringed upon. The Bill of Rights also establishes that in the event of an actual emergency, governmental authorities with the consent of the Nations of the North Pacific may act in any reasonable manner consistent with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution. The Constitution does not provide for the ability to infringe on Free Speech in any of its provisions.

The only provision that allows for infringement on the right to free speech is Section 11 of the Bill of rights when there is an emergency situation, governmental authorities may act in a reasonable manner with the permission of the Nations of the North Pacific.

Therefore the Court after reviewing the above has reached a unanimous agreement that the Sedition Law is unconstitutional and is therefore stricken from the Legal Code of the North Pacific.
 
*Blue Wolf quickly runs around Nationstates asking every sort of Raiders, Revolutionists, Usurpers, past rogue delegates, rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and My Little Pony fans if they would like to plot with him in "Operation Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!"*

Only plot, though, to go beyond that would be illegal. :P
 
Blue Wolf II:
*Blue Wolf quickly runs around Nationstates asking every sort of Raiders, Revolutionists, Usurpers, past rogue delegates, rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and My Little Pony fans if they would like to plot with him in "Operation Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!"*

Only plot, though, to go beyond that would be illegal. :P
Click to expand...
:duh: :rofl:
 
* Gaspo removes court hat

I'm really tempted to make a series of awful jokes from Blazing Saddles right here, about which types of crimes I'd say twice because I like them and so forth.
 
with the new mass TG technology, i suspect this ruling has saved a lot of time for the AG's office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top