Freedom of Expression Amendment

Cormac

Cormac

TNPer
TNP Nation
Cormactopia III
Discord
Cormac#0804
Paragraph #2 of The Bill of Rights for all Nations of The North Pacific shall be amended to read as follows:

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, regardless of the mode of their expression, 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 the Constitution.
Click to expand...
 
All right. I'm proposing this amendment as a response to the Court's ruling here -- but not for the reasons some may assume.

I do believe that The North Pacific has the right to restrict and prohibit the use of its coat of arms and I believe that we would still have the power to do so even with a freedom of expression amendment. The coat of arms was (and perhaps, debatably, still is) the property of its creators, and its use was conditional upon the wishes of its creators. Moreover, it could also be argued that the coat of arms is the property of the Government of The North Pacific. No one has a right to use another's property to express himself, so use of the coat of arms could still be restricted or forbidden.

My concern is that the Court's ruling has broader implications. Most of us may agree that the coat of arms should not be used except in an official governmental capacity. But how many of us would agree that the government should be able to unreasonably restrict our choice of avatars, the use of party logos in our signatures, or our flag choice on our TNP nation? I'm very concerned that if the Court does not interpret an image as speech this opens the door to governmental abuse and it's the potential for this abuse that I'm seeking to address. To be clear, reasonable restrictions on expression -- i.e., a pornographic image -- would still be permissible, just as reasonable restrictions on speech for the sake of protecting the forum are currently permissible.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Define "free expression".
Click to expand...
I don't believe that's anymore necessary than defining speech. Speech is not defined by the Bill of Rights, yet we all recognize that there are reasonable limitations on freedom of speech -- speech that threatens the existence of the forum, speech that is treasonous or seditious, speech that is fraudulent, etc. I'm confident that citizens of The North Pacific and the Court of The North Pacific could reach similarly reasonable conclusions in regard to freedom of expression.
 
If you do not want to define free expression can you provide examples of free expression that would not currently be covered by the current items within the Bill of Rights as written today.

Free expression seems like a very nebulous terms that I think many will have a difficult time defining much less determining if someone is exercising this right or if the government is violating it.
 
Chasmanthe:
In what way would the state unreasonably restrict freedom of expression?
Click to expand...
If the Court interprets "speech" to include only text, as seems the case in the recent ruling, there are a number of ways the government could unreasonably restrict freedom of expression. I've mentioned several: unreasonable restrictions/prohibitions of avatars, prohibition of party logos in signatures, restrictions/prohibitions of flags used on TNP nations, etc. Anything that is an image rather than text could be regulated, restricted or prohibited by the government if the Court recognizes speech only as text and if there is no free expression clause.

punk d:
If you do not want to define free expression can you provide examples of free expression that would not currently be covered by the current items within the Bill of Rights as written today.

Free expression seems like a very nebulous terms that I think many will have a difficult time defining much less determining if someone is exercising this right or if the government is violating it.
Click to expand...
As I've just noted, if I'm interpreting the Court's ruling correctly anything that is not text is not protected by the free speech clause of the Bill of Rights. This means that the government can legally regulate, restrict or prohibit any image without violating the Bill of Rights.

In regard to your second point, I'm not sure I see how free expression is anymore nebulous than free speech yet that is also undefined in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights isn't meant to be overly specific; it's meant to establish broad parameters that the Court can interpret and within which the executive and legislative branches must operate.
 
The restrictions you've stated are the categories of the restrictions rather than the motives behind the state action.
 
Chasmanthe:
The restrictions you've stated are the categories of the restrictions rather than the motives behind the state action.
Click to expand...
Possible motives behind the actions I've described:

- Dislike of certain avatars.
- Opposition to political parties in general or specific political parties.
- Dislike of certain flags and/or promotion of certain flags.

Some of these may seem unlikely, but given the overall history of The North Pacific I don't think we can rule them out. We have had rogue Delegates. We have had Delegates who have respected the letter of the Bill of Rights but have refused to respect anything but the bare minimum of rights. We have had citizens and government officials alike who have manipulated the law, sometimes just to see what they can get away with. Many of these things haven't happened in the recent past but they have happened and now that the cat is out of the bag that images aren't protected as speech, I think we should protect the right to free expression sooner rather than later before someone interprets the lack of boundaries as permission to regulate, restrict or prohibit any image they want.
 
Cormac Stark:
don't believe that's anymore necessary than defining speech.
Click to expand...
Ah, no, it is. "Speech" is pretty obvious, "Expression" is more obtuse. You can claim almost any act as "expression".

So, in what way do you mean "expression"? How are you intending it to be defined?
 
Blue Wolf II:
Cormac Stark:
don't believe that's anymore necessary than defining speech.
Click to expand...
Ah, no, it is. "Speech" is pretty obvious, "Expression" is more obtuse. You can claim almost any act as "expression".

So, in what way do you mean "expression"? How are you intending it to be defined?
Click to expand...
My primary intention is for it to protect expression through images, since that seems not to be covered by the free speech clause. If that's not protected I see much potential for abuse, as I've noted.

If anyone has any suggestions as to alternative phrasing that would make this less murky I'm open to them.
 
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights writes:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
 
Why does a flag or arms matter so much? If you're suggesting impersonation is an issue, it's quite easy to spot an impersonator. We have simple means to be able to discover these things.
 
unibot:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights writes:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Click to expand...
Oh, I didn't know RL UN documents had any bearing over TNP law.
 
New Kervoskia:
unibot:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights writes:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Click to expand...
Oh, I didn't know RL UN documents had any bearing over TNP law.
Click to expand...
Cormac wanted suggestions, I was providing him with an example of Freedom of Expression in RL.
 
Please keep in mind that forum administration and moderation team has a constitutionally protected duty to assure compliance with the forum Terms of Service and Terms of Use, and material violating the ToS and ToU (such as pornography) won't gain protection by other means.

Perhaps "mode of expression" might be a better phrasing in the context of this proposal as opposed to just the word "expression." The underlying element of both freedom of speech and freedom of expression is the expression of opinion and ideas, that may or may not use graphical or symbolic elements, which represent speech and expression in its broadest context.
 
Firstly Cormac could you please refrain from creating unnecessary posts? TNP forum users already have a habit of posting numerous replies when editing their post would have been more than sufficient. As far as I know you haven't exceeded any character limit in your first post so there was no reason to post your justification in a separate post! What's worse is that you have done so within 60 SECONDS of the first post so it was entirely useless and intentional. I say this, not as the deputy speaker but as a fellow member of the RA.

Secondly, NK several users above requested a definition and Unibot has provided one. So yes. It is entirely relevant.

Beyond that I will say no more.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Please keep in mind that forum administration and moderation team has a constitutionally protected duty to assure compliance with the forum Terms of Service and Terms of Use, and material violating the ToS and ToU (such as pornography) won't gain protection by other means.

Perhaps "mode of expression" might be a better phrasing in the context of this proposal as opposed to just the word "expression." The underlying element of both freedom of speech and freedom of expression is the expression of opinion and ideas, that may or may not use graphical or symbolic elements, which represent speech and expression in its broadest context.
Click to expand...
Grosse, this is in the terms of the game. If someone does post something such as pornography, then moderation can ban them. The in-game laws of the region have no hold on moderation's responsibilities.
 
This whole discussion appears to be in reaction to the seemingly sudden realization that one of our laws prohibits non-government officials from flying only the Coat of Arms of TNP.

I must ask why we are attempting to pass a law that will, by proxy, make the above mentioned Coat of Arms law unconstitutional, through what I can only assume will have to be yet another Court ruling. Shouldn't we instead be directly addressing the offending law itself?
 
New Kervoskia:
unibot:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights writes:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Click to expand...
Oh, I didn't know RL UN documents had any bearing over TNP law.
Click to expand...
Once upon a time, there was a clear divide between RL and ingame, and no effort was made to push RL policies ingame, because there's just too much difference in structure to have it be viable. Worked pretty well for us, at hat time. Seems that's no longer the case?
 
Blue Wolf II:
This whole discussion appears to be in reaction to the seemingly sudden realization that one of our laws prohibits non-government officials from flying only the Coat of Arms of TNP.

I must ask why we are attempting to pass a law that will, by proxy, make the above mentioned Coat of Arms law unconstitutional, through what I can only assume will have to be yet another Court ruling. Shouldn't we instead be directly addressing the offending law itself?
Click to expand...
that would require too much common sense.
 
punk d:
Blue Wolf II:
This whole discussion appears to be in reaction to the seemingly sudden realization that one of our laws prohibits non-government officials from flying only the Coat of Arms of TNP.

I must ask why we are attempting to pass a law that will, by proxy, make the above mentioned Coat of Arms law unconstitutional, through what I can only assume will have to be yet another Court ruling. Shouldn't we instead be directly addressing the offending law itself?
Click to expand...
that would require too much common sense.
Click to expand...
Actually it doesn't make any sense, common or not, at all.

At the moment our Freedom of Speech is totally undermined and not anything as a definition like we thought it meant. The Court has chosen to adopted a literal interpretation of Freedom of Speech, which is unusual for any Court to do so in the last hundred years or so.

What's the point of a Bill of Rights at all if it is weak as white tea and we want to strike down any offensive law one by one in the legislature anyway? The Bill of Rights is our protector from both extant and future pernicious legislation.
 
Gaspo:
New Kervoskia:
unibot:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights writes:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Click to expand...
Oh, I didn't know RL UN documents had any bearing over TNP law.
Click to expand...
Once upon a time, there was a clear divide between RL and ingame, and no effort was made to push RL policies ingame, because there's just too much difference in structure to have it be viable. Worked pretty well for us, at hat time. Seems that's no longer the case?
Click to expand...
Once upon a time, people made on topic posts. Seems that's no longer the case.
 
Once upon a time in a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or eat: it was a hobbit-hole and that means comfort.
 
punk d:
Blue Wolf II:
This whole discussion appears to be in reaction to the seemingly sudden realization that one of our laws prohibits non-government officials from flying only the Coat of Arms of TNP.

I must ask why we are attempting to pass a law that will, by proxy, make the above mentioned Coat of Arms law unconstitutional, through what I can only assume will have to be yet another Court ruling. Shouldn't we instead be directly addressing the offending law itself?
Click to expand...
that would require too much common sense.
Click to expand...
Except this has nothing to do with the coat of arms, I have stated that I don't think the coat of arms should be used by anyone except government officials and I have argued that this amendment would still allow us to restrict or prohibit use of the coat of arms. Does anyone actually read my posts? :no:

Kiwi:
Firstly Cormac could you please refrain from creating unnecessary posts? TNP forum users already have a habit of posting numerous replies when editing their post would have been more than sufficient. As far as I know you haven't exceeded any character limit in your first post so there was no reason to post your justification in a separate post! What's worse is that you have done so within 60 SECONDS of the first post so it was entirely useless and intentional. I say this, not as the deputy speaker but as a fellow member of the RA.
Click to expand...
I wasn't trying to annoy anyone; some people prefer that only the actual legislation be in the OP while any discussion of it is placed in a separate post. But sorry, I guess.
 
I think this is unnecessary, and so vague that it will open a 6pack can-o-worms worth of future court cases. With the exception of the Coat of Arms, which is blocked (and clearly documented why), can you point out other examples where 'expression' has been a problem - outside of any RL Board ToS issues?

~B
 
Biyah:
I think this is unnecessary, and so vague that it will open a 6pack can-o-worms worth of future court cases. With the exception of the Coat of Arms, which is blocked (and clearly documented why), can you point out other examples where 'expression' has been a problem - outside of any RL Board ToS issues?

~B
Click to expand...
No I can't, but I don't think most people realized before the recent Court ruling that images weren't protected under freedom of speech. Now that the cat's out of the bag I have concerns about future abuses. However, I'm going to work on wording that would make this less vague in line with Grosse's suggestion when I have time later today.
 
Then I'll wait to comment more, until the newly worded version is out. The fact that no examples of abuse can be found makes me leary, though.
 
Cormac Stark:
No I can't, but I don't think most people realized before the recent Court ruling that images weren't protected under freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
Images, within the confines of game rules and the forum TOS, are protected. The law only states one image, the TNP Coat of Arms, is for official use only.

No other image is either for official use only or prohibited by the law, so all other images are a go.

In any case, the recent Court ruling didn't rule on if Section 7.1 of TNP legal code violated the Bill of Rights. The only question posed to the Court was if Section 7.1 could be interpreted to mean that if a non-government official was flying TNP Region flag, they would be in violation of the law, which we determined not to be the case.

If you wish the Court to rule on whether Section 7.1 is a violation of the Bill of Rights or not, that would have to be brought up in a separate matter.
 
Biyah:
I think this is unnecessary, and so vague that it will open a 6pack can-o-worms worth of future court cases. With the exception of the Coat of Arms, which is blocked (and clearly documented why), can you point out other examples where 'expression' has been a problem - outside of any RL Board ToS issues?

~B
Click to expand...
*coughs* You know most of the Bill of Rights' clauses have not been used in the Courts much at all, right? The Bill of Rights exists because we ought to have protection of these rights, not because in practice we need them often. Ignoring this issue out of legislative laziness is not the correct response.
 
In any case, the recent Court ruling didn't rule on if Section 7.1 of TNP legal code violated the Bill of Rights. The only question posed to the Court was if Section 7.1 could be interpreted to mean that if a non-government official was flying TNP Region flag, they would be in violation of the law, which we determined not to be the case.
Click to expand...

Inaccurate, the Court ruling also said that Sect. 7.1 did not conflict with Article 2 of the Bill of Rights. Which implies that the Freedom of Speech is not taken as including symbolic speech -- my suspicions that this was the case was confirmed when you and your fellow Honorable Justices hinted at this fact by "daring" me to assert which Right was threatened by Sect. 7.1 -- obviously your fellow Honorable Justices had a canned "ah hah!" response to follow an assertion of the Right of the Freedom of Speech. There was no response from the Justices when I predicted this move and preemptively called them out on their archaic decision to use eighteenth century reasoning to exclude symbolic speech from the protection of the Right of Freedom of Speech.
 
unibot:
In any case, the recent Court ruling didn't rule on if Section 7.1 of TNP legal code violated the Bill of Rights. The only question posed to the Court was if Section 7.1 could be interpreted to mean that if a non-government official was flying TNP Region flag, they would be in violation of the law, which we determined not to be the case.
Click to expand...

Inaccurate, the Court ruling also said that Sect. 7.1 did not conflict with Article 2 of the Bill of Rights. Which implies that the Freedom of Speech is not taken as including symbolic speech -- my suspicions that this was the case was confirmed when you and your fellow Honorable Justices hinted at this fact by "daring" me to assert which Right was threatened by Sect. 7.1 -- obviously your fellow Honorable Justices had a canned "ah hah!" response to follow an assertion of the Right of the Freedom of Speech. There was no response from the Justices when I predicted this move and preemptively called them out on their archaic decision to use eighteenth century reasoning to exclude symbolic speech from the protection of the Right of Freedom of Speech.
Click to expand...
Symbolic speech has no standing in TNP law. I would like to remind you that the court is not intended to make the law, but rather to interpret it, and that it has repeatedly rejected judicial activism. The court is going to enforce the law as it is, not the law as you wish it was.
 
Belschaft:
Symbolic speech has no standing in TNP law. I would like to remind you that the court is not intended to make the law, but rather to interpret it, and that it has repeatedly rejected judicial activism. The court is going to enforce the law as it is, not the law as you wish it was.
Click to expand...
I agree that the Court shouldn't engage in judicial activism, though I'm not sure it's activist to interpret speech less literally than the Court has chosen. Regardless, I agree that the recent fetish with turning to the Court rather than the Regional Assembly to remedy legislative problems is troubling which is why I've proposed this amendment.

In regard to some comments made by others including the most recent one by Blue Wolf, there's no reason for anyone to follow this request but I'll make it anyway: If you want to debate the coat of arms and/or impersonation, could you please create a thread for that debate or propose legislation to amend that section of the Legal Code? As I have repeatedly stated, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the coat of arms and I believe that prohibiting or restricting use of the coat of arms would still be legal under the amendment I've proposed.

Revised amendment:

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, regardless of the mode of their expression, 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 the Constitution.
Click to expand...
This new language takes into account concerns raised regarding the vagueness of "free expression" by declining to establish a new right and instead clarifying that existing rights must be respected regardless of the mode of their expression, in line with Grosse's suggestion.
 
unibot:
*coughs* You know most of the Bill of Rights' clauses have not been used in the Courts much at all, right? The Bill of Rights exists because we ought to have protection of these rights, not because in practice we need them often. Ignoring this issue out of legislative laziness is not the correct response.
Click to expand...
So I've seen. And we've all seen people poking hornet nests lately in regards to the Bill of Rights: manufacturing bogus incidents and court cases with the express intent of being dramatic and/or raising a stink (or, else, because said people have Martyr Syndrome).

There is a distinct difference between legislative laziness, and not adding unnecessary clauses to the Bill of Rights because the issue has only come up in forced examples. The only legitimate example of this has been the Coat of Arms, and that was clarified through the courts.

That a certain segment of the population didn't like the court's decision is beside the point, no court ruling is universally loved. And since Cormac could not name one other example of the people's rights being stomped on, this bill appears to be nothing but a publicity stunt or over-legislation.

Don't go all wide-eyed and worshipful of civil rights on us, we already have basic rights through the BoR. This would-be amendment stirs shadows, there's no substance and no reason for it. Nobody has been stomped on, nobody is being oppressed. It's just an excuse for certain people to carry a torch and scream to the heavens about abuse and rights and whatnot.

~B

Edit: &$% quote tag.
 
I can support Cormac's revised proposal, although I regret that the Court chose an unnecessarily literalist reading of "freedom of speech" such as to make the proposal necessary.
 
The Bill of Rights has been around for four constitutions now, and only this current Court seems to have a belief that an ultra- extremist literal meaning of the word "speech" has to be applied. I'm surprised y'all didn't limit "speech" to spoken rather than written language given the logic the Court used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top