[Private] The North Pacific v Nubit II

The Court took into consideration the relevant clauses of the Legal Code:

Chapter 1: Criminal Code, Section 1.2 Espionage
6. "Espionage" is defined as sharing information with a group or region when that act of sharing has not been legitimately sanctioned by the entity the information is gathered from, as limited by this section.

Click to expand...

Chapter 2: Penal Code
3. Espionage will be punished by the suspension of speech and/or voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.

Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the Prosecution:

bootsie:

Your Honor,

This decision will be a historic one for the Court. Since the inception of the Court, there has only been one other case brought before it where the defendent was found guilty of espionage, Ravania in the case of The North Pacific v. Ravania, and thus this will be the first case where the defendent has pled guilty to the charge of espionage and will soon be sentenced under that charge.

As such, now more than ever, the Court needs to evaluate the sentence it hands out to the defendent, Nubt II of Mortipal, as this case will define the precedent that the Court will follow on future espionage sentencing.

In the case of The North Pacific v. Ravania, the Court handled out the sentence of six months being unable to vote. While this does fall into the Penal Code and its guidance on sentencing, it also falls short of what one would expect from someone who is using their free speech to spread information for those who do not have access.

In their closing post of the thread, then-Attorney General Gaspo had this to say, which I believe completely encapsulates the way we should be looking at espionage:



While I would not consider Nubt II of Mortipal's actions to be "spying" in the traditional sense of the word, they still posted what was private Regional Assembly material into a public forum for all to read. While it may have been negligence on their part, negligence of the law does not protect them from a sentence that is representative of that law.

Like Ravania, they have shown no remorse nor attempt to remove the material in question, which is still available for all to view in this thread since they were charged with espionage. While it would've been too little, too late, to avoid a charge of espionage, it could've prevented more people from knowing every single detail about the Treaty until it was up for a vote.

Instead, Nubt II has been silent and has not posted anything since their charge. No apology, no removal of the material, no attempt at swaying their fellow citizens that even though they made a mistake, they would be working to rectify their actions and go on to produce a law-abiding news service.

With all that being said, I believe that Nubt II should have their speech suspended as well as their voting rights stripped. The issue is, how would such a suspension work?

While the law specifies that suspension of speech is a punishment, it does not lay out what type of speech can be suspended and how the Court would actually ensure that the speech in question would be suspended. While I was unable to find where the Court weighed in on the idea of suspending speech, I was able to find an opinion from the writing of our current Penal Code that may bring some light to exactly how the Court should suspend speech.

In the thread that would ultimately lead to our current Penal Code, former Chief Justice SillyString lists some rights that she believes should be restricted and how the Court should restrict them.

Like she stated, while the Court could theoretically restrict Nubt II from publishing their "The North Pacific Today", it would be a weird to see a governmental body restricting the speech of a private media organization that can inform its citizens and serve as a critic to the sitting officials.

Specifically, I believe that suspension of speech as a function of another sentence is the way that the Court should go in this sentence.

While Nubt II does not hold any position in the government, they do hold one that if it removed, would suspend their speech and voting rights for a definite period: Nubt II's citizenship.

This would allow Nubt II to continue publishing their newspaper, which is one of their reasons for remaining in The North Pacific, while also ensuring that they would be unable to report on anything that is confidential material and unavailable to non-citizens.

It is well within the rules set by our Penal Code, as it does suspend Nubt II's speech and voting rights by virtue of citizenship for a definite amount of time while not being against the Bill of Rights, which a sentence suspending their speech a different way might run into.

Hopefully in this period without a citizenship, Nubt II will familiarize themselves with the law and how to write a newspaper without running afoul of the law that they agreed to abide by.

It is with all this that I ask that my official sentencing recommendation to be entered as such:

Nubt II of Mortipal will be barred from citizenship in The North Pacific until April 16th, 2022 (a period of 5 months).

Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the ancillary statement made by the Prosecution:

bootsie:

It has been brought to my attention that Nubt II of Mortipal was ordered by the Court not to remove the offending post. Please strike that point from the record.

Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the Defense:

Comfed:

Your Honour,

Before I state my sentencing recommendation, I would like to first address the sentencing recommendation from the prosecution. Barring Nubt II of Mortipal (henceforth referred to as Nubt II or Nubt) from citizenship is illegal and does not serve to achieve the aim of restricting their speech. I will first address the illegality of the prosecution's recommended sentence. The Legal Code of the North Pacific states that the sentence for espionage must be as follows:

Note that this does not include suspension of citizenship. Indeed, arguably the only sentence that can result in stripping the defendant's citizenship is Treason (or conspiracy to commit treason), which requires the ejection and banning of a convicted defendant. Additionally, stripping Nubt of their citizenship would not merely serve as a suspension of speech rights, but also the right to vote in elections, which is not mentioned in the Penal Code clause governing sentencing for espionage.

With regards to the sentencing recommendation, I believe that this is a case without precedent. Although there exists the case of The North Pacific v. Ravania, this case differs in important ways, most importantly that Nubt did not leak information from the Private Halls of the Regional Assembly with malicious intent, and also was ignorant of the fact that what he was doing at the time was illegal, indeed that he was even posting private information to public areas at all. While this does not excuse the crime, it should be taken into account as a mitigating factor and a factor that differentiates this case from The North Pacific v. Ravania. Other mitigating factors in this case are that Nubt has been a citizen of The North Pacific in good standing with no criminal history before this case, and that he entered a guilty plea at the earliest juncture.

It is the opinion of the defence that a sentence in this case must work within the rules of the Penal Code to reflect an adequate consequence for Nubt's actions, and serve as a means to ensure that Nubt does not make this mistake again. With regards to the first, I recommend a 3 month suspension of Nubt II's Regional Assembly voting rights. This punishment is not unlike previous punishments set by the Court, and amounts to a reasonable sentence in light of the facts of the case. With regards to the latter, I recommend a 4 month prohibition on Nubt from operating any private media outlets in The North Pacific. This will give him enough time to learn the proper ethos of publishing, and also allow him to learn which information is private and should not be viewable for outside sources.

Therefore, I ask that my official sentencing recommendation be entered as follows:
Nubt II of Mortipal will have their Regional Assembly voting rights suspended until 16 February 2022 (a period of 3 months) and shall be prohibited from publishing any content in private media outlets until 16 March 2022 (a period of 4 months).

Click to expand...

The Court finds as follows:
Under the Legal Code of The North Pacific (Chapter 1, Clause 6 & Chapter 2, Clauses 1 and 3) the Court issues the following sentence to Nubt II of Mortipal for Espionage:

1. Suspension of the right to vote for a period of 4 months, ending [4 months from posting date];
2. Prohibition from publishing in any Private Media Outlets related to NationStates for a period of 4 months, ending [4 months from posting date];
3. Suspension of the right to vote for an additional period of 6 months conditional on a violation of the Prohibition from publishing in Private Media Outlets, ending [6 months from the end of the other date]

The Defendant was indicted on one charge of perjury, following a posting of the text of a protected document under debate in the private halls of the Regional Assembly within his Private Media Outlet "The North Pacific Today".

While the Court does find this troubling it must bring some attention to the Prosecution, the case that was cited in comparison included a defendant who actively worked with a group outside of the region for a gain while this case involved a single individual acting alone publicly leaking information. The claim that the defendant "shows no remorse" is also partially nullified by the fact in this case the defendant did not try to portray innocence and voluntarily plead guilty.

The Court must also bring to the spotlight the idea made by the Defendant the idea of a restriction around posting for media outlets, this does effectively bring the punishment in line with the crime that was committed but it is a punishment that can easily be violated. So the Court finds it necessary to bake in a substitute ruling should this condition be violated.

This decision will stand unless overturned. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v. Nubt II of Mortibal.

The Court took into consideration the relevant clauses of the Legal Code:



The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the Prosecution:

The Court took into consideration the ancillary statement made by the Prosecution:

The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the Defense:

The Court finds as follows:
Under the Legal Code of The North Pacific (Chapter 1, Clause 6 & Chapter 2, Clauses 1 and 3) the Court issues the following sentence to Nubt II of Mortipal for Espionage:

1. Suspension of the right to vote for a period of 4 months, ending [4 months from posting date];
2. Prohibition from publishing in any Private Media Outlets related to The North Pacific for a period of 4 months, ending [4 months from posting date];
3. Suspension of the right to vote for an additional period of 6 months conditional on a violation of the Prohibition from publishing in Private Media Outlets, ending [6 months from the end of the other date]

The Defendant was indicted on one charge of perjury, following a posting of the text of a protected document under debate in the private halls of the Regional Assembly within his Private Media Outlet "The North Pacific Today".

While the Court does find this troubling it must bring some attention to the Prosecution, the case that was cited in comparison included a defendant who actively worked with a group outside of the region for a gain while this case involved a single individual acting alone publicly leaking information. The claim that the defendant "shows no remorse" is also partially nullified by the fact in this case the defendant did not try to portray innocence and voluntarily plead guilty.

The Court must also bring to the spotlight the idea made by the Defendant the idea of a restriction around posting for media outlets, this does effectively bring the punishment in line with the crime that was committed but it is a punishment that can easily be violated. So the Court finds it necessary to bake in a substitute ruling should this condition be violated.

This decision will stand unless overturned. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v. Nubt II of Mortibal.