[Private] Suppression of Speech

plembobria

plembobria

TNPer
-
-
R4R.

Opinions? I am initially skeptical as to whether Elu's actions count as suppression of speech. Elu isn't suppressing the posts to prevent criticism of the government, or using the suppression feature to tyrannize DD.
 
Although looking at the posts in context elu does not seem to have been even handed. I hope he makes submission and explains his reasoning.
 
I'd like to hear why the posts were suppressed by Elu.

EDIT: One of the suppressed comments was liked by Plemboria so you might face a question of recusing yourself from this R4R.
 
I also think we should not allow Speculation and guesswork from any third party as to why elu did what he did.
 
What I mean is that if someone says, "I think eluvatar has a downer on dd. he has been hounding him in every region they encounter one another in." We need to say "please provide evidence for this or it will be treated as speculation and struck from your submission."
 
OK, so all we have to go on is the initial complaint: no submissions have been made by either Eluvatar or the AG or anyone else.

there seem to be three main issues:

1. Whether suppressing a post on the RMB constitutes a challenge to the right to free speech.
2. The legal limits under which the delegate is allowed to suppress post on the RMB.
3. Whether, in this specific instance, DD's right to free speech was broken.
 
I think if Elu was suppressing posts in criticism of the government, that would constitute a violation of the BOR. What appears to have been happened is the following: DD and Eluvatar were engaged in a facetious argument about double posting. Elu, as part of said facetious argument, suppressed DD's deliberate double posts.

Legally speaking, double posts are not illegal, therefore a delegate does not technically have the power to suppress such posts, if they cannot be (legally) considered spam. While this could be semantically construed as a BoR violation, I really don't think the court should give this review too much thought.
 
I am not sure you should have extended the period for briefs. If the AG office cannot get their shit in gear in five days they do not deserve more time.
 
other thoughts:
NS rules are irrelevant. We are here to interpret and apply the laws of TNP.
This case is a bit of a time waste. I agree, it was a bit of a lark, from what i can see, and unworthy of the courts time.
I think the eventual ruling ought to state that technically elu should not have done it, but Meh.
 
I tend to think Elu was overstepping here, but without briefs it's mostly speculation on my part.
 
Well, it would have little legal force, but a summons could be issued.

If Elu refused, that would be his right but it would not look good on him.

Thus:

"The court finds that it needs more information in order to make a ruling, and therefore summons Eluvatar to appear before the court by 20th August 2015."
 
Actually I asked elu about the case on IRC, this is the exchange:

plembobria Eluvatar, why didn't you file a brief on DD's R4R? Flem and my collective panties are in a bunch
mcmphone I filed a brief on the RMB yesterday
plembobria I saw
Eluvatar Honestly? I wasn't sure what I really thought, legally. Hadn't really considered the question before, was just doing what it seemed we were doing >__>
Click to expand...

I appears that the delegate believed he was "playing along" with DD.
 
I don't feel that a summons is necessary. It is quite clear, both implicitly and now explicitly, that Elu was playing around. That said, the ruling should state that it technically illegal for the delegate to suppress ordinary speech, this case is not to be taken too seriously.
 
I have written a draft response:

Nationstates is a game with rules. Some of those are the game rules, some of them are the rules of the various hosting sites etc that we play the game on, and some of them are house rules that we invent ourselves to make the game more fun: kinda like receiving £400 instead of £200 when landing precisely on GO in Monopoly.

We call some of these house rules “laws” and have courts to arbitrate them. There are two reasons for this. The first is that this is a political/legal sim, and roleplaying Perry Mason is part of the fun of it all, and the other reason is because we are pretty sad individuals who have little actual power in real life, and the online fantasy of importance compensates slightly for our impotence in real life.

In this case, it is clear from testimony and reading the suppressed posts in context that technically Eluvatar abridged DD’s right to free speech. It is also clear that this was in the context of banter back and forth, playing the game, shooting the breeze etc.

What bewilders us is quite why the courts were asked to get involved. I mean, I know we are sad individuals living in our parents’ basement who badly need to get laid but instead play NS obsessively, but surely some things are just too trivial even for us?

There was no harm; there was no foul. Now excuse us, we have to go back and polish our medals. Y’all can carry on pontificating about this if you wish, but if you do so please detach a little bit of your mind to listen to yourself as you type, and despair.
Click to expand...
 
Now is the moment not to respond to DD. Others may well chip in but unless DD makes an appeal, we should say nothing.
 
Sorry guys - end of my vacation and just getting back to things. thought i could be online more than i was. But it was refreshing. I feel ready to tackle the latter part of the year.

EDIT: Not a fan of the approach we took on this one. I will not make any public comments though. I feel we should have taken a less snarky role but I do agree with the sentiment if not the semantics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top