Question for MOJ

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
Dear Sir,

I would like to ask a simple question, if I may.

Do nations of the North Pacific have any protection under the law against slander and libel? I am talking about in-character affairs, not those which would be covered by moderation and invisionfee's TOS.

I would be grateful if you could advise me on this matter. I believe that I have been grossly slandered by another nation, without evidence, and I am wondering what recourse I have to law.

Even should this specific matter be resolved amicably through apology, I would be interested to know as a general legal point.

Many thanks

Yours Respectfully,

Flemingovia.
 
Yes, there is actually a section in the constitution for trials dealing with matters of e-honor. It's right after the section about how The North Pacific is defender oriented.
 
Monumental Proportions:
Ministry of Justice, we help when we feel like it.
Click to expand...
Slander! Or Libel! (Confused).

Uh, well I guess I could say that constitutionally the Justices are supposed to answer these kinds of inquiries. So maybe the MoJ is just ignoring it since it is not within the scope of his job?

Edit: I know the answer to this inquiry.
 
Article V, Section 5. Grounds for Civil, Criminal or Impeachment Proceedings.

The following acts shall constitute grounds for civil, criminal or impeachment proceedings:
A - Failure of a Nation to observe and abide by the Constitution of The North Pacific and The North Pacific Legal Code.
B - Failure of a Nation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation or region in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution of The North Pacific and the North Pacific Legal Code.
C - Failure of a Nation to refrain from giving assistance to any nation or region against which The North Pacific is taking defensive or enforcement action. Exceptions is given to those Nations acting with official authorization of the North Pacific Army or the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, and is subject to the consent of the Cabinet officer having appropriate jurisdiction.
D - Failure of a Nation to Observe Its Oath of Office or its Oath as a Regional Assembly Member.
Click to expand...

This article is quite specific in what provides grounds for civil proceedings. It does not seem to me to cover libel.

Yes, there is actually a section in the constitution for trials dealing with matters of e-honor. It's right after the section about how The North Pacific is defender oriented.
Click to expand...

Can't find that bit. Can you reference it for me?
 
The government, man! They're in our brains. OUR BRAINS, MAN! We'll also soon be zombies controlled by the government's power and will! It's a conspiracy, man, I'm telling you! We have to escape before we get too deep in! Later, they're going to stick mind-control rods up our arses, dude! And control us through anal communications! The government's taking over our lives, man! They're lying to you! Everyday! Every second! They speak lies!!!
 
Erm, if there were an article which covers slander and libel, who would you be bringing charges against?
Click to expand...

Nobody, since the person involved printed an apology. But this led me to question whether there was any law in tnp which prevented lies or unsubstantiated claims being made against a character.

If there is not any such law, I will be proposing a small amendment to our laws to introduce such a thing.
 
Article V:
Section 3. Civil Proceedings.

A - Any nation that believes some other nation in The North Pacific has caused injury to any right, liberty, privilege, protection, or other duty that belongs to that nation as a matter of right under the Constitution of The North Pacific, or The North Pacific Legal Code, and which does not rise to the level of a criminal offense, that nation may file, or may request the Attorney General to file, a civil complaint.
B - The Court may adopt procedures for trial of a civil complaint, which may be tried with or without a jury.
Click to expand...

That's fairly vague and could perhaps be stretched to cover libel :/
 
Is an amendment necessary? If someone is out of line in the Assembly the Speaker is very good about correcting them and if they are throwing around accusations without foundation well, that just makes them look like an ass.
 
flemingovia:
Nobody, since the person involved printed an apology. But this led me to question whether there was any law in tnp which prevented lies or unsubstantiated claims being made against a character.

If there is not any such law, I will be proposing a small amendment to our laws to introduce such a thing.
Click to expand...

I really hope we don't, considering the past use of "libel" and "slander" in the region.

I mean, really, some people learn to grow up a little. And I think it's particularly sad coming from you Flem, who tends to give as good as you get in this respect.
 
I really hope we don't, considering the past use of "libel" and "slander" in the region.

I mean, really, some people learn to grow up a little. And I think it's particularly sad coming from you Flem, who tends to give as good as you get in this respect.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with robust debate, and i agree, yes, I will get involved in the give and take.

But there is a difference between debate and lying or making statements without evidence to back it up.

If I have engaged in this, Haor Chall, please tell me. Because I do not think I have.

Or is this just another "Oh look, Flem made a statement, let's make a snide comment about him"?
 
flemingovia:
I have no problem with robust debate, and i agree, yes, I will get involved in the give and take.

But there is a difference between debate and lying or making statements without evidence to back it up.
Click to expand...

There may well be, but I got a little tired of all the "slander!" "libel!" shouting that went on last year, mostly involving Cathyy/IP admittedly, and I don't really want that back. Things here are bad enough as it is without that as well.

Personally I don't really see the point. People need to grow thicker skins. Sticks and stones an' all.


Or is this just another "Oh look, Flem made a statement, let's make a snide comment about him"?
Click to expand...

:o Would I ever? Are you slandering me?!

:noangel:
 
Dezzland:
Is an amendment necessary? If someone is out of line in the Assembly the Speaker is very good about correcting them and if they are throwing around accusations without foundation well, that just makes them look like an ass.
Click to expand...
That's the issue I think, about trusting me and others making an ass of themselves.
 
Things is..while the obviously extreme slander is bad, removing any arguements totally would be to procede down a very dull road
 
It is entirely possible to participate in good, heated argument without slander (or libel) being involved - it's just a question of not making stuff up.
 
Well it looks like this doesn't need an answer, or if it does, I interpret the Constitution as giving the right to free speech, which implicitly includes common law protections against slander and libel.

I don't know how slander works in an online forum, though.
 
"Southwest Asia eats babies! And I mean the Nationstates person Southwest Asia, not the actual geographic location."

Something like that I would imagine...baby eater.

Slander and libel! Haha! Ex post facto!
 
Would it be out of line for me to say that you, DD, are a comedy genius, that you also make a good point and that when this is all over we should get an apartment together?
 
For what it''s worth, the preferred legal term these days is "defamation," since it covers everything that "libel" or "slander" would cover.
 
So is this thread becoming the "Get that defamation out of the way before the government infringes on your right to free speech" thread? Because that would be :cool:

Blue Wolf saves his farts in a jar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top