(time=1345057800) <@Eluvatar> and bah somebody really should file a complaint against Durk for the "TNP Freedom Fighters" thing
(time=1345057800) <+Gulliver> Are we happy with the procedures for those right now or should i suggest those as last minute business
(time=1345057800) <@Eluvatar> This is just beyond absurd
(time=1345057800) <+Gulliver> What's he doing
(time=1345057800) <@Eluvatar> JAL's running for Delegate
(time=1345057860) <+Tim> TNP Freedom Fighters?
(time=1345057860) <+Tim> Where is this?
(time=1345057860) <+Durkadurkiranistan> LOL
(time=1345057920) <@Eluvatar> ...
(time=1345057920) <@Eluvatar>
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/se...&s_m=11&s_d=25&s_y=2005&e_m=8&e_d=15&e_y=2012
(time=1345057920) <@Eluvatar> oh wait there already is a complaint
(time=1345057920) <@Eluvatar> Grosseschnauzer!!
(time=1345057920) <@Eluvatar> Posted Jul 24 2012, 10:22 PM
(time=1345057980) <@Eluvatar> TNP Freedom Fighters = JAL = Durkadurkiranistan btw
(time=1345057980) <+Tim> Durk is TNP Freedom Fighters?
(time=1345057980) <@Eluvatar> Yes
(time=1345057980) <+Tim> What evidence do we have
(time=1345057980) <@Eluvatar> He said so
(time=1345057980) <@Eluvatar> the nation said so
(time=1345057980) <+Tim> And do I have to go beat Durk's ass now
(time=1345057980) <+Gulliver> Yes
(time=1345057980) <@Eluvatar> 21 days ago: TNP Freedom Fighters changed its national slogan to "I'm Durk".
(time=1345057980) <+Durkadurkiranistan> yeah but TNP Freedom Fighters didn't do anything illegal
(time=1345058040) <@Eluvatar> "I would like to complain against treetar and tnp_freedom_fighters
(time=1345058040) <@Eluvatar> for Sedition under TNP criminal code Section 1.3"
(time=1345058040) <@Eluvatar> ~Pasargad
(time=1345058040) <+Tim> Pasargrad is ex-Regressive Party ;_;
(time=1345058040) <+Tim> traitor...
(time=1345058040) <+Gulliver> Is Durk unaware that the legal code was updated
(time=1345058040) <@Eluvatar> > 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.
(time=1345058040) <@Eluvatar> Gulliver: even the old legal code would apply
(time=1345058040) <@Eluvatar> he sent out telegrams
(time=1345058040) <+Gulliver> Hah
(time=1345058040) <+Durkadurkiranistan> lol yay another trial
(time=1345058040) <+Durkadurkiranistan> !
(time=1345058040) <@Eluvatar> Now that said
(time=1345058040) <@Eluvatar> "in a manner not sanctioned"
(time=1345058100) <@Eluvatar> so if he can argue it falls under free speech he gets off
(time=1345058100) <@Eluvatar> *demonstrate
(time=1345058100) <@Eluvatar> obviously he can argue XD
(time=1345058100) <+Tim> It does argue xD
(time=1345058100) <+Durkadurkiranistan> why wouldn't it?
(time=1345058100) <+Tim> It's totally free speech
(time=1345058100) <@Eluvatar> > 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 this Constitution.
(time=1345058100) <+Gulliver> Where was this complaint made
(time=1345058100) <@Eluvatar> Gulliver: "Complaints" thread in AG office
(time=1345058100) <+Gulliver> The last complaint I can see is Punk d's post from yesterday
(time=1345058100) <@Eluvatar> visible from search:
(time=1345058100) <@Eluvatar>
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/se...&s_m=11&s_d=25&s_y=2005&e_m=8&e_d=15&e_y=2012
(time=1345058160) <@Eluvatar> Generally, freedom of speech is understood to have limitations,
(time=1345058160) <+Tim> This is an old complaint though....
(time=1345058160) <+Gulliver> Ah it's from Jul 24
(time=1345058160) <+Durkadurkiranistan> if I was not trying to overthrow the government why would an unendorsement campaign be illegal?
(time=1345058160) <@Eluvatar> like, you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre
(time=1345058160) <@Eluvatar> Similarly, outright laws tend not to be permitted
(time=1345058220) <@Eluvatar> and actually your statements, if deceptive, fall under clause 1.10: Fraud
(time=1345058220) <@Eluvatar> 10. .Fraud. is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.
(time=1345058220) <+Tim> Actually... is it illegal to yell Fire in a crowded theatre?
(time=1345058220) <+Tim>
(time=1345058220) <+Durkadurkiranistan> they were 100% ceptive
(time=1345058220) <@Eluvatar> Yes, Tim, yes it is.
(time=1345058220) <+Tim> Ah. Okay
(time=1345058220) <+Gulliver> Because people could die
(time=1345058280) <@Eluvatar> "Shouting fire in a crowded theatre" is a popular metaphor and frequent paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919. The paraphrasing does not generally include the fact that falsely shouting fire to highlight that speech which is merely dangerous and false which can be distinguished from that which is truthful but also dangerous. The quote is used as an example of speech which is claimed to serve no conceivable useful purpose and is extremely and imminently dangerous, as they held distributing fliers in opposition to a military draft to be, so that resort to the courts or administrative procedures is not practical and expresses the permissible limitations on free speech consistent with the terms of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
(time=1345058340) <@Eluvatar> "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."
(time=1345058340) <@Eluvatar> `The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). `
(time=1345058400) <@Eluvatar> `According to Fenan, Holmes's change of heart influenced his decision to join the minority and dissent in the Abrams v. United States case. Abrams was deported for issuing flyers saying the US should not intervene in the Russian Revolution. `
(time=1345058400) <+Durkadurkiranistan> who is the AG?
(time=1345058400) <@Eluvatar> Grosseschnauzer
(time=1345058400) <+Durkadurkiranistan> lol, awesome
(time=1345058460) -!- mcmasterdonia|sleep [~mcmasterd@...] has quit []
(time=1345058460) <+Tim> omg lol
(time=1345058460) <+Tim> Grosse v. Durk
(time=1345058460) <@Asta> OKAY TIMDURK
(time=1345058460) <@Asta> I have a first draft
(time=1345058460) <+Tim> OMG YAY :F
(time=1345058460) <+Tim>

*
(time=1345058460) <@Eluvatar> Tim: it's be TNP v JAL (3)
(time=1345058460) <+Tim> xD
(time=1345058460) <@Eluvatar> or TNP v. "TNP Freedom Fighters"
(time=1345058520) <@Eluvatar> *it'd
(time=1345058520) <+Tim> TNP v. King Durk the Awesome
(time=1345058520) <+Tim> Asta. Can we see this awesome Draft 1
(time=1345058520) <@Eluvatar> The complaint was filed before the namechange @_@
(time=1345058520) <@Eluvatar> idk
(time=1345058520) <+Tim> But he's name changed already
(time=1345058520) <@Eluvatar> it'll be up to the Court, presumably
(time=1345058520) <+Tim>