Libel

Article 5, Section 3. Civil Proceedings.

A - Any nation that believes some other nation in The North Pacific has libelled or defamed that nation or hascaused 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...

I have added that clause because currently a nation can start civil proceedings if their rights under the constitution or legal code have been injured. But the right not to be libelled is not enshrined in the constitution.

Therefore, anyone can libel anyone else - by which i mean lie about them, or make defamatory statements without evidence to back it up - and the injured party has no redress to law.

Like there isn't enough pettiness going on here now without introducing a way for people to use the judiciary to lash out at people for something that is decidely subjective, and whose definition almost entirely depends on the offended party.

What happens when evidence is presented that is defamatory in nature but hidden behind confidential/secret/national security reasons? Does the nation have the right to bring a case against the government for what are basically unsubstantiated claims against their character?

I just think this is petty and getting a conviction from the courts over this would be nigh on impossible.

Oh boo.

so, that is two petties with a side order of boo.

I do not see what is so petty about trying to afford our citizens a measure of protection against being lied about, or malicious accusation?

EM And DD back this up with arguments that seems to say "the courts can't handle it" and "someone might sue the government."

Now THAT is petty.

If a nation lies about another nation, then there should be the possibility of recourse to law. It is one of the basic protections that law affords. If you are worried about malicious prosecution, then put in restrictions or strictures etc.

I think we can trust the assembly to know the line between tongue-in-cheek and mean spiritedness. As far as lying and making false statements, that's the liars' own punishment because they just sent they just sent their credibility down river.

I find the oversight of officials in places such as this are already doing a good job of not allowing debate go too far. True, mudslinging being a staple to politics is never by enjoyed by all but the idea of having the government and the courts define and dictate what is true outside of the legal realm of Constitutional definitions is worriesome. The debate over the disclosure of security documents was loud enough after all.