Review of the Sedition Law

I'm tired so if I'm rambling here, please bear with me. I mightn't make sense at first, so if you have no idea where I'm coming from, just let me know. I'm going to primarily look at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights here, but I'm also going to touch on the Legal Code as we begin.

First off, Sedition in the Legal Code is defined as a separate entity/subject to Treason. It's clear from a reading of this Chapter, that Treason encompasses any action taken against TNP for the purposes of overthrowing its government, whether that be through actually taking up arms oneself, or the enabling of someone to take up arms.

Sedition is defined as merely an attempt to incite someone to do the above. What's suggested to me here, taking into account the section concerning treason, is that a discussion, suggestion or an implication that the government should be overthrow would be covered by the law concerning Sedition. All of those three things can only be done via speech, which considering the form of communication we use to play this thing, also covers the written word.

I then move on to the Bill of Rights that tells me that the right to free speech cannot be infringed, under Section 2.

The Bill of Rights forms part of the Constitution.

The Constitution establishes the Regional Assembly which is given the powers to enact laws.

Section 11 of the Bill of Rights tells me that the government cannot disregard sections of the Constitution. Even in the event of an actual emergency, and only then with the permission of the nations within the region (i.e. the Regional Assembly), the government still has to act in a manner that is reasonably consistent with the Constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) does it give the power to infringe on the right to free speech except under Section 11 of the Bill of Rights and only when the conditions it lines out has been met.

As such, I can't consider the current law on Sedition constitutional, as it violates the right to free speech as guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, and the only conditions where it could have been introduced (in a state of emergency and with the permission of the RA) were not met.
 
Very thorough evaluation. I had pretty much already came to that conclusion. I will be drafting a draft ruling shortly.
 
My apologies for the delayed response. I kept on missing this then RL happened and stuffs :P

The first thing is the obvious: there is, presumably, no Constitution/Bill of Rights sanctioned manner of revolt. Arguably recalls...but that's a bit of a stretch. I agree with the argument that punishment is for -saying- things is definitely an infringement on free speech - there's no provision for that within the black and white Bill of Rights (correctly, imho). So yeah, pretty much what Sanc said.
 
Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Gaspo on the Constitutionality of the Sedition Law​

The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Gaspo.

The Court took into consideration the Relevant Section of the Legal Code of the North Pacific:
Section 1.3: Sedition:
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.
Click to expand...
The Court took into consideration the Relevant Sections of the Bill of Rights of the North Pacific:
Section 2 and 11 of the Bill of Rights:
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 the Constitution.

11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
The Court also took into consideration the Constitution of the North Pacific.

The Court opines the following:

The Sedition Law defines Sedition 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".

The Bill of Rights establishes that each Nation has the right to free speech and that that right cannot be infringed upon. The Bill of Rights also establishes that in the event of an actual emergency, governmental authorities with the consent of the Nations of the North Pacific may act in any reasonable manner consistent with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution. The Constitution does not provide for the ability to infringe on Free Speech in any of its provisions.

The only provision that allows for infringement on the right to free speech is Section 11 of the Bill of rights when there is an emergency situation, governmental authorities may act in a reasonable manner with the permission of the Nations of the North Pacific.

Therefore the Court after reviewing the above has reached a unanimous agreement that the Sedition Law is unconstitutional and is therefore stricken from the Legal Code of the North Pacific.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top