ROUGH IDEA: PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT ACT

[Flemingovia]

Here is a rough idea. the Terms of Use of the forum give us certain protections, but unless the moderation team choose to take action, we have no route for taking court action, becuase our laws do not cover such things as harassment, slander, libel etc.

Here is the start of an idea which would give us the protection of law, if the moderation team chose not to take action:

Amendment to the Bill of Rights: Protection from harassment

Recognizing the dignity of nations in the North Pacific

A nation must not pursue a course of conduct
•Which violates the terms of service or terms of use of the forum
•which amounts to harassment of another
•which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
•Which uses malicious prosecution, moderation requests or other methods to seek to intimidate another nation.

It is only a rough idea and coule use a lot of improvement, and the inclusion of laws on libel.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other

A little vague. Then we get into the argument of what a reasonable person would know, or what a 'ordinary' person would/would not do.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Some ideas I thought i'd throw in.

Recognizing the Dignity of all Nations of The North Pacific

A nation must not pursue a course of conduct that impedes on the dignity of another nation:

1. Which amounts to harassment of another nation. Where harassment is considered to be the act of persistently irritating or tormenting, or impeding a nation from carrying out his/her responsibilities with dignity OR
2. through the use of slander/libel, the making of a false spoken/written statement damaging to a person's reputation. OR
2. acts in ways that violates the terms of service or use of the forum OR
3. The use of repeated malicious prosecution, moderation requests or other methods to seek to intimidate/threaten another nation

 

[Eluvatar]

A great deal of this seems very vague, I don't know...

 

[Flemingovia]

yeah. It was sort of a stream of consciousness I wrote down in the hope someone would be able to improve on it.

 

[Eluvatar]

I'll stew it into my brainstorming on the Legal Code revamp.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I do not believe this goes into the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution, for that matter.

 

[Flemingovia]

I do not believe this goes into the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution, for that matter.

Ought not the right to play the game without harassment be a fundamental right?

 

[Romanoffia]

Legislating civility doesn't have a track record of working well - which is why there is a need for a common law system (jurisprudence in legal terms under Anglo-Saxon Positive Law principles) to cover 'tort' related items like slander, libel and threats.

After all, free speech doesn't include screaming fire in a crowded movie theater, or falsely or improperly accusing someone of something that is unsubstantiated or patently false.

 

[peoples empire]

The only real problem I have with this proposed act is that if it passes, it may lead to a situation in which TNP Members will be accusing each other of making libelous statements simply for political or personal reasons, bogging down the legal system, and creating a scenario in which freedom of speech may be abridged as a consequence.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Under the last constitution, we did have a means for civil actions for such things, but it was rarely attempted, and the drafters of the current constitution hated it so much they limited the court's jurisdiction severely.
A right, and a fundamental right, in constitutional terms are different creatures. Issues of speech are protected, but how it is exercised is always subject to reasonable time, place and manner constraints. That's why a claim of harrassment can be addressed in the legal code.
The real question is whether we want that as a criminal offense, or find a way to revive having a civil claim process in the Court.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

I believe civil complaints will realize better outcomes if they can be mediated rather than litigated. Court actions are by nature adversarial, while mediators work toward compromise and "unruffling feathers." If we decide to include issues like harassment or slander in the legal code, we should consider setting up a mediation team to handle those types of complaints.

 

[Eluvatar]

I do think that putting the responsibility of arbitration on the Court might be wise.

 

[peoples empire]

I believe civil complaints will realize better outcomes if they can be mediated rather than litigated. Court actions are by nature adversarial, while mediators work toward compromise and "unruffling feathers." If we decide to include issues like harassment or slander in the legal code, we should consider setting up a mediation team to handle those types of complaints.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I believe civil complaints will realize better outcomes if they can be mediated rather than litigated. Court actions are by nature adversarial, while mediators work toward compromise and "unruffling feathers." If we decide to include issues like harassment or slander in the legal code, we should consider setting up a mediation team to handle those types of complaints.

This is a brilliant idea. It would keep things out of court and be a less formal/adversarial way of dealing with issues. Hopefully the people after mediation could continue to be friends.

I think the best way to do this would to be require certain disputes, to try and be solved by mediation. A presiding judge could serve as the mediator, probably on IRC? Due to its live nature. Obviously though if mediation can't reach an agreement, it will have to go to court.