[R4R] The Right of Freedom of Press and its limits.

1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?
Chapter 2; Section 3 of The North Pacific's Legal Code

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 North Pacific v. Nubt II of Mortipal's sentence.

• Suspension of the right to vote for a period of 4 months, ending 5 April 2022;
• Prohibition from publishing in any Private Media Outlets related to The North Pacific for a period of 4 months, ending 5 April 2022;
• 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 5 October 2022

Click to expand...

2. What portions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or other legal document do you believe has been violated by the above? How so?
Article 2 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.

Click to expand...

In the sentence, it was imposed the following penalty:

Prohibition from publishing in any Private Media Outlets related to The North Pacific for a period of 4 months, ending 5 April 2022;

Click to expand...

And they were legitimized under the Chapter 2; Section 3 of the Legal Code, that implies the posibility of suspension of speech.
However, this goes in direct contradiction with the Bill of Rights divides freedom of press and freedom of speech. These freedoms "shall not be infringed [...] by governmental authorities of the region".

The Legal Code stablishes the limitation being done for Freedom of Speech, not freedom of Press.
3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?
None to my knowdlege.
4. Please establish your standing by detailing how you, personally, have been adversely affected. If you are requesting a review of a governmental action, you must include how any rights or freedoms of yours have been violated.
I am a citizen and resident of the region, and by that I am entitled to the rights potentially vulnerated, and for such, I have been affected by a possible potential limitation of my rights to speech and/or free press.
I am also the owner of a press thread, VPS, and it is in my interest to know the potentiality of the effects of this court decision at large.
5. Is there a compelling regional interest in resolving your request? If so, explain why it is in the interest of the region as whole for your request to be decided now.
There is. This region is proud to share a banner of liberties and a profound history within the Nationstates community at large, and these kinds of limitations and interpretations of freedom of press and speech can be of danger in the future. It is in the interest of the region to resolve this question as soon as this has popped up before any problem would arise.
6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?
I would like to have a proper definition on how the Freedom of Speech, as we have it by our Bill of Rights, is set and why, even if the BIll of Rights clearly differentiates freedom of speech from freedom of press, these two definitions have been merged in the sentence.

Given my role in this case, I must recuse myself from this matter.

For the same reason, I also recuse myself.

I must thirdly recuse myself for the same reasons as above.

Following discussions with the Speaker, I hereby appoint @Sil Dorsett @Prydania and @Tree of Wisdom as Temporary Hearing Officers for this R4R - they should take their oaths as soon as possible.

I’ll post my oath here in a minute or so.

Tree of Wisdom:

I, Tree of Wisdom, do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as Temporary Hearing Officer, I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of Temporary Hearing Officer with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.

Click to expand...

For the sake of clarity, this oath shouldn't be posted here, but in the correct thread.

St George:

Following discussions with the Speaker, I hereby appoint @Sil Dorsett @Prydania and @Tree of Wisdom as Temporary Hearing Officers for this R4R - they should take their oaths as soon as possible.

Click to expand...

Yes, I have given my agreement for this list of Temporary Hearing Officers.

The request is denied. The petitioner lacks standing and does not advance a compelling regional interest.

In [R4R] On Standing and the Definition of Affected Party, the Court established that "The affected party must detail in their review request the rights they perceive have been violated and/or the laws put asunder showing a clear connection between the law and how they are personally affected in the situation." The request for review hinges upon Vivanco's concern that his rights could be impacted, not that they have been. The petitioner has provided no evidence that they have been personally impacted by the decision of The North Pacific vs. Nubt II of Mortipal. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to establish standing as an affected party.

The petitioner asserts there is a compelling regional interest, which is that "... limitations and interpretations of freedom of press and speech can be of danger in the future." The action in question only impacted Nubt II following a criminal indictment and guilty plea, and did not impact the region at-large. There is nothing preventing a review of the constitutionality of the sentencing by the affected party, and similar sentencing can still be reviewed upon a request by an additional affected party when such party is directly impacted. Therefore, the Court does not find sufficient regional interest to overrule the lack of standing.

As this Request for Review is denied, the Court will not be commenting on the question of the constitutionality of the sentencing order in The North Pacific vs. Nubt II of Mortipal.