Standing:
The petitioner is a nation ejected and banned, and as such is entitled to judicial review of the same pursuant to Article 8 of the Bill of Rights.
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner by their own admittance a message on the RMB that appeared to contain personal details such as addresses both IP and home, later indicating it to be both fake and a joke. Their nation was ejected and banned by the serving Delegate under section 7.3.11 of the Legal Code.
Consideration of the Case:
Taking into account both the Legal Code and prior rulings such as On the Regulation of the Regional Message Board that rule on the specifics of it, the Delegate and their Regional Officers have broad authority to regulate the Regional Message Board. Certainly the usage of that authority is subject to judicial review such as this as mandated by law or otherwise appropriate, provided those actions are in reasonably good faith to help the community and absent evidence of abuse or misuse of these powers outside the law, NationStates rules, and TNP Community Guidelines. In this instance, the post in question, while deleted, is indicated to have looked like it contained personally identifiable information, and thus constitute doxxing. This is a both a defined violation of NationStates rules and very reasonably something to prohibit for the health of the community; thus any suppression of the post in question would have been entirely reasonable. Further, while the Legal Code limits the use of ejection and banning of resident nations, violations of NationStates rules is one of the clearly defined allowed reasons, and as doxxing is itself a violation of those rules usage of the powers of ejection and banning are entirely reasonable. In both cases, a justification of the post being a joke does not make it less subject to the RMB regulation powers ascribed to the Delegate and their officers, particularly when a given post is not clearly labeled as such or when there is not any reasonable to verify that it is actually one, as in any nearly instance of potential doxxing. Finally, while the petitioner queries how any moderation actions of the RMB are carried out, the Delegate has followed the law in providing public notification of the ejection and ban in the legally prescribed place and all rules and laws in question are provided on the regional WFE directly or very nearly so, and the Delegate retains broad regulation powers regardless as described by prior rulings.
Conclusion:
The ejection and ban of the petitioner's nation by the Delegate was done entirely consistent with regional law and precedent relating to the same.