R4R

DiamondComodo

I'm probably reading about The Vietnam War or WWII
1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?

The decision to suppress my Regional Message Board post (located here) taken by Kastonvia, the Lead Gameside Advocate, and the decision to suppress my post (located here) taken by Madjack, the Delegate, and further comments by the Delegate on Discord:

Madjack:
Hello, delegate here. If you're posting transphobic stuff on the RMB, I'm going to suppress it. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to post things that deny the validity of the identity of multiple members of TNP, even if you aren't mentioning them directly. Not without me then suppressing it.

Madjack:
DiamondComodo:
Ah, so you are suppressing the voices of me and other cisgenders
No. I'm suppressing your voice alone, for posting transphobic stuff on the RMB.

(extracts taken from Discord, the messages by Madjack can be found here and following from that)

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?

Bill of Rights for all Nations of The North Pacific:
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.

My freedom of speech has been violated because my Regional Message Board posts were suppressed. This suppression was because of the opinions I expressed in the posts and has the aim or effect of limiting my freedom of speech and, therefore, infringes on my right to free speech and is contrary to the obligation of the region’s governmental authorities to encourage free speech.

The Delegate, in making the comments noted above, indicated that his view was that the posts I made were transphobic and that he would suppress similar posts despite him acknowledging them as being my opinion. In so doing he threatened to exercise the governmental power to suppress Regional Message Board posts against me if I exercised my right of free speech to express my opinion. That infringes on my right of free speech and is contrary to the obligation to encourage free speech.

3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?

On the Constitutionality of Prohibiting Sedition. In this ruling, the Court held that “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.” On this basis, the Court found that the Legal Code’s prohibition on sedition was unconstitutional and ordered it to be struck. There was no regional emergency justifying the suppression of my posts and the infringement on my rights, so that suppression was unconstitutional.



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 have been personally adversely affected because my Regional Message Board posts have been suppressed and the Delegate has indicated to me particularly that he would suppress my voice if I made similar posts. This adversely affects my right of free speech.

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.
No

6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?

Insofar as it is said that the suppression of my posts is regulation of the Regional Message Board under Section 7.3, clause 17 of the Legal Code, clause 19 provides that such action will be subject to judicial review.

Legal Code of The North Pacific - Section 7.3: Onsite Authority:
17. The Serving Delegate may regulate the Regional Message Board as they see fit.
18. Such regulations may not prohibit speech which is in the context of TNP politics.
19. All actions of the WA Delegate, the Serving Delegate, or of their appointed Regional Officers related to this section will be subject to judicial review.
 
Last edited:
This request for review is accepted. I will be taking up the position of Moderating Justice over this review. The period for submitting briefs is now open and shall remain open for five days. The respondents will be notified as per Court Procedures Chapter 2.3-4.

(Edit: Respondents have been notified)
 
Last edited:
Brief

If it pleases the Court,

I submit this brief as amicus curiae to assist the Court, however, in the interest of transparency I note that I did give some assistance in terms of drafting to the Petitioner.

The Issues

It is submitted that the questions before the Court are: what limit is placed on the Delegate’s power to regulate the Regional Message Board (“RMB”) by the right of free speech guaranteed by the Bill of Rights; and, what restrictions can properly be placed on that right.

This brief will set out the law concerning regulation of the RMB and relevant past rulings of the Court on the right of free speech. In analysis, it will be submitted that there is a tension in the past rulings that the Court ought to resolve by determining that the regional government may place appropriate limits on the right where that is sufficiently justified by regional interests. While this brief will aim to set out the relevant factors relating to the restriction of speech that has occurred in this case, this will be done in the interest of assisting the Court and not to press for a particular outcome.

RMB Regulation

It has long been recognised that the regional government may appropriately place limitations on RMB activity. This is demonstrated by the longstanding prohibition on adspam by Delegate Decree punishable suppression and summary ejection and banning, which has for the whole life of the current Legal Code been supported by provisions in the Criminal and Penal Codes (Legal Code of The North Pacific, Section 1.10, clause 32 and Chapter 2, clause 8; adopted 14 June 2012).

Legal authority over the RMB is also provided by Section 7.3 of the Legal Code, the relevant provisions of which are below.

Legal Code of The North Pacific - Section 7.3: Onsite Authority:
17. The Serving Delegate may regulate the Regional Message Board as they see fit.

18. Such regulations may not prohibit speech which is in the context of TNP politics.

19. All actions of the WA Delegate, the Serving Delegate, or of their appointed Regional Officers related to this section will be subject to judicial review.

These provisions on their face permit the Delegate to exercise a wide authority over the content of the RMB, allowing them to do “as they see fit” subject only to the proviso that they may not prohibit speech within the context of the region’s politics. It is submitted that this does include an ability to regulate by enforcing any regulation made by the Delegate through suppression of posts.

However, it must be recognised that simply because the Legal Code does not place any further limit on the Delegate’s authority, it does not follow that there is no further limit. The Constitution guarantees all nations the rights contained in the Bill of Rights and neither the Delegate’s policy nor the Regional Assembly’s law can contradict constitutional provision (Constitution of The North Pacific, Article 1, clause 1 and Article 6, clause 17). It is submitted, therefore, that the Bill of Rights places limits on the exercise of the power given by Section 7.3 of the Legal Code, whether or not those limits are expressly recognised by the Code or by any regulation made by the Delegate under it.

It is submitted that the Petitioner must be correct that one such limit is provided by Article 2 of the Bill of Rights, which is set out below.

Bill of Rights for all Nations of The North Pacific:
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.

The right of free speech extends much more broadly than speech within the context of the region’s politics. To accept otherwise would be to accept that governmental authorities could engage in sweeping restrictions on speech, be it discussion of foreign politics, debates on World Assembly matters, roleplay, sharing flag designs or art, or even simple friendly interaction.

Rulings on Free Speech

The Petitioner has identified the principal ruling in their favour as being on the Constitutionality of Prohibiting Sedition. This case demonstrates that the protection of free speech does extend to where Regional Assembly has chosen, by law, to impose restrictions, the same principal must apply to the law in this case and, arguably, with greater strength given that the actual restrictions here are not made directly by law but are left to the Delegate’s discretion. It shows also that protection is extended not only to beneficial speech but to speech intended to harm the region, in that case by inciting revolt contrary the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The ruling suggests that the only basis for restriction on speech can be an actual emergency. This clearly favours the Petitioner’s case, given there is no such emergency justifying the suppression of their posts.

However, there is tension between the decision on the Constitutionality of Prohibiting Sedition and other decisions of the Court relating to free speech.

In its decision on the Delegate's Authority to Staff the Executive Branch, the Court discussed the issue of free speech in the context of nations serving in the executive branch as government officials or staff. The Court noted that even in the context of a broad, constitutionally backed power to appoint and dismiss executive officers freely, the Delegate “may not exercise this (or any) power in a way which violates the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, or the Legal Code”.

It noted also, relevantly to the Delegate’s comments in this case, that “The Bill of Rights protects nations' freedom of speech, and the right to question and criticize the regional government, without fear of retribution. This protection includes the right not to be threatened or punished for exercising that right.”

However, the Court upheld limited restrictions on the right of free speech of government officials where they are speaking with the authority of government or where their disagreement with the Delegate means they are not able to adequately carry out the Delegate’s goals and on the right of nations within the executive staff for similar such reasons, giving the example that a nation that insulted an ally could reasonably be refused a position an ambassador.

Similarly, in a series of decisions on the Speaker’s powers (on the Speaker’s Power to End Debate, on the Use of the Speaker’s Power to End Debate, and on the Speaker’s Power to Schedule Votes), the Court recognised that the right of free speech could be “balanced against the demands of a civilised society”, including the rights of other nations and the regional interest in orderly conduct in the Regional Assembly. Again, these restrictions were in the context of a broad, constitutionally sanctioned discretion, the Speaker’s.

Analysis

It is submitted that, taking these decisions together, there is a tension between them. On the one hand, on the Constitutionality of Prohibiting Sedition, which appears to suggest only actual emergencies can justify restriction of speech, but on the other a range of decisions suggest the permissibility of limits where justified by other interests.

It is submitted that, in resolving this tension, the Court should favour the latter approach, which has been supported by a consistent line of rulings over several years by differently constituted Courts and which, as a matter of first principals, is more conducive to effective regional government in line with the region’s constitutional scheme, including the obligation for regional authorities to act in the best interests of the region (Bill of Rights for all Nations of The North Pacific, Article 2). Insofar as this involves overruling on the Constitutionality of Prohibiting Sedition, it is submitted that should be done, though the Court should not (in this otherwise unrelated case) seek to revisit the whole of the decision including its conclusion about the constitutionality of the sedition law and so should not order the whole ruling to be stricken.

This then leaves the Court with the question of how to resolve the constitutionality of the restriction on speech in this case. It is submitted that a number of factors can be identified from the prior cases referred to that are relevant.

First, the nature and breadth of the power being exercised. In the cases referred to above, the power being exercised was rooted in the Constitution and were broadly framed (being either the Delegate’s power appoint and dismiss executive officers freely (Constitution of The North Pacific, Article 3, clause 8) or the Speaker’s discretion as to administering the Regional Assembly’s Rules (Constitution of The North Pacific, Article 2, clause 8)). The constitutional nature of the power is, it is submitted, of particular relevance given the obligation to act in the best interests of the region is stated to be “as permitted and limited under the Constitution”. Here, the power (to regulate as the Delegate sees fit) is clearly broad, but it is created by the Legal Code. Such broad powers, when not provided for by express provision of the Constitution, should be approached by the Court with a view to ensuring they are not used to diminish the rights of nations in ways that could not be done by the Legal Code itself and need not be afforded the same latitude as is rightly given to constitutionally recognised powers.

Second, the regional interests at stake and whether the restriction furthers those interests. The prior cases recognise important regional interests that were involved, such as encouraging equal treatment of citizens and maintaining an appropriate atmosphere for the Regional Assembly. It is submitted that those interests, or similar ones, could properly be found to be extant here. While the atmosphere of the RMB is likely to require a less regulated and ordered approach than the Regional Assembly, there is a regional interest in it being maintained as a pleasant, welcoming, and usable space for residents. Such interests, among others, justify the restriction on adspam and could be said to apply to the Delegate’s approach in this case which appears aimed at fostering an atmosphere welcoming of players whatever their gender identity. However, it should also be recognised that the Petitioner’s posts, though offensive, are not of the most disruptive and harmful nature.

Third, as addressed particularly in the ruling on the Use of the Speaker’s Power to End Debate, the severity of the restriction. It is submitted that the restriction here cannot be seen to be as being at the lowest level (which could simply have been a request for the Petitioner to reframe from similar such posts in future), it did involve active use of a regional power afforded only to regional officers and does have the effect, though limited, of decreasing the visibility of the posts. However, it similarly is not the highest severity, the posts remain capable of being viewed and it is not suggested that other sanction, beyond further suppression of similar posts, would be imposed.

Ultimately, it is for the Court to weigh the appropriate factors and to judge whether it considers that the restriction on speech is adequately justified.

Conclusion

It is submitted therefore that the actions in this case could amount to infringement on free speech and are not justified merely by virtue of the existence of Section 7.3 of the Legal Code. The Court is bound to consider the effect of the Bill of Rights, in particular its protection of free speech. However, the Court need not take an absolute approach that only restrictions on the basis of actual emergencies are justified and, insofar as that is supported by the ruling on the Constitutionality of Prohibiting Sedition, that ruling should be overruled.

The Court should instead weigh the relevant factors to determine whether the restriction in this case is justified in the best interests of the region and determine the matter accordingly.

Unless I can be of further assistance to the Court, those are my submissions.
 
A Brief


The petitioner misstates and attempts to mislead the court about the nature of his post and his behavior around it. The petitioner attempts to paint the actions of the Delegate as a targeted attempt to harass and restrain the petitioner. However; the facts, petitioner's behavior since, and his own statements do not support the petition as submitted.


A Statement of Facts


The petitioner did post a transphobic comment on the Regional Message Board. This is supported by the petitioners brief. This fact is not in dispute.


The petitioner did so because he was angry. The petitioner's own words support this as seen here on Discord. (If the post is deleted, server logs can be submitted to support.) This provides important context to the nature of the post.


The Delegate suppressed the bigoted post in accordance with NS rules and TNP Community Guidelines. NationStates rules prohibit flamebaiting. Flamebaiting is defined as "posts that are made with the aim of angering someone indirectly. Not outright flame, but still liable to bring angry replies. Flame baiting is a far more subtle and covert action; it is an underhanded tactic that is designed to provoke a response from another player.." The NationStates rules can be found here. TNP Community Guidelines prohibit hate and bigotry including "Disparaging comments or slurs related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neuro(a)typicality, physical appearance, pregnancy status, veteran status, marital status, body size, age, race, national origin, ethnic origin, nationality, immigration status, language, religion or lack thereof, or other identity marker." TNP Community Guidelines can be found here.


The Delegate is de facto moderator of the Regional Message Board, Regional Nation, and World Factbook Entry for the North Pacific.



Argument


Regulation of the RMB is an inherent power of the Delegate and Regional Officers of any region, not only TNP. The Delegate must regulate the RMB in accordance with the rules of NationStates and the standards of the community. Indeed, regions have been destroyed by NationStates Moderation and the Gameplay community at- large due to the delegate failing to control the behavior of their residents outside of "in character actions". What we see here is a Delegate executing his duties to the community and the game at large.


We start with a bigot and their comment on the RMB. "Oh yeah, and there are only 2 genders." Comments like this have been repeatedly made by extremists to marginalized groups that they see as lesser beings. The poster explains to us that "I shouldn't have done that, but I was mad atm." In anger, words are often spoken that are hurtful. This does not give license to a person to make those statements and not receive the consequences of such actions. The poster faced a minor consequence to his action. His post was suppressed. Instead of taking this matter to heart and changing, the poster doubled down on his behavior. He goes into other TNP properties and continues to promote his bigotry to the extent he was reprimanded by the RP Moderation team. He argues that having his bigotry hidden has harmed him and that he should be free to continue such behavior in the future. He further argues that any attempt to suppress violations of NationStates and Community rules by the Delegate is a violation of the Bill of Rights.


Fortunately, this is not true.


The Delegate and Regional Officers serve both in their in-game capacities and as moderators of the region in-game. This is largely due to tradition and game mechanics. Only regional officers have the ability to suppress and remove players from the in-game region. It has been my direct experience as a regional officer during multiple terms (no doubt the same for the members of the court who have served the region in various capacities) that the NationStates moderators direct, want, and allow Regional Officers to correct minor rules infractions so they can allocate their limited resources to major rules infractions. The court can read countless posts by NationStates Moderators to players about letting regional officers handle things and/or to check with regional officers before filing GHRs. Indeed the Court has recognized this aspect of the Delegates power in On the Regional Ban of Kirana.

The Delegate also enforces regional Moderation rules on the RMB. Traditionally, this has involved enforcing Role Play rules set by TNP RP Moderators and enforcing regional bans made by the TNP Mod/Admin team. However, this has grown recently to include enforcement of TNP Community Guidelines. This authority has been traditionally delegated to the Delegate and from them to the regional officers and gameside advocates. We, as a region, went as far as to codify this both in the Constitution (Article 7.2) and in the Legal Code.

With this in mind, the questions before the Court are not as simple as presented by the petitioner. Indeed, the cause of action presented may not even apply to the situation at hand. Instead, the Court must answer two questions before considering the request presented by the petitioner.

  1. Was the post a violation of the NationStates rules and/or TNP Community Guidelines?
  2. Was the Regional Officer/Delegate acting under the Delegate’s authority as de facto moderator?
If the Court answers the first two questions in the affirmative, then there is no need for further review. The question presented by the petitioner is no longer properly before the court as the petitioner can no longer establish direct harm from the Delegate’s actions. Moderation actions have generally faced limited oversight by the Court and with good cause. Outside of ensuring that the matter was an enforcement of existing rules and properly conducted, the Court has never second guessed moderation actions within its scope of review. This petition has presented nothing that requires the Court to change. Instead, the petitioner is requesting the Court to reverse a moderation ruling and establish a precedent in order to allow them and other bad actors to flaunt the game and regional rules at the expense of others within the region.

The Court must weigh these factors within this review. As the Court looks at the post, it is clearly a violation of our community rules and NationStates rules. Such violations fall within the Delegate’s authority as de facto moderator of the regional message board and not under his authority as in-game Delegate. The Court need not look further than this, at this time.


Respectively Submitted in his capacity as a citizen
Dreadton
 
I join Zyvet’s brief, in my capacity as a citizen. If I can, as I am the petitioner in question.
 
i agree with Zyet, in my capacity as a citizen.

The issue is that they made a transphobic comment about the "2 genders statement."

They did not make any transphobic comment, since trans isn't a gender. And even then, they should have the right to say what they please when it comes to genders. Sure it could be wrong in your books, but is it wrong in theirs? And I would also want to remake the RMB rules to allow free speech, but don't allow racism or such like that. So it doesn't become 4chan.
 
Last edited:
If the court permits,

Although the breifing period has closed, I ask the court to take in consideration the following. This just occured this morning and the court can verify via a GHR with the help request. Shared with permission from the recipient. This is clearly relevant to the matter at hand.

Screenshot_20220429-110853_Chrome.png
 
If the court permits,

Although the breifing period has closed, I ask the court to take in consideration the following. This just occured this morning and the court can verify via a GHR with the help request. Shared with permission from the recipient. This is clearly relevant to the matter at hand.

View attachment 500

In the event that the Court accepts this into the record, and in case there's any confusion to whom the TG was sent to, Guslantis is my NS nation and Dreadton did ask my permission prior to sharing with the Court.

I'm also willing and able to assist the Court if it requires my assistance in verifying the above evidence.
 
Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by DiamondComodo on the Regulation of the Regional Message Board.
Opinion drafted by Pallaith, joined by Kronos and Sil Dorsett

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by DiamondComodo
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Zyvetskistaahn
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here, and its addendum here by Dreadton

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Constitution of The North Pacific.
Article 1. Bill of Rights
1. All nations are guaranteed the rights defined by the Bill of Rights.
-
Article 6. General Provisions
17. No law or government policy may contradict this constitution.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portion of the Bill of Rights of The North Pacific.
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.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portion of the Legal Code of The North Pacific.
Chapter 7: Executive Government
Section 7.3: Onsite Authority

11. Violators of NationStates rules, or residents banned offsite by forum administration, may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
12. Residents banned on the basis of forum bans imposed by forum administration may not be banned for longer than the length of the ban imposed by forum administration.
13. Nations recruiting for other regions may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
14. Nations for which the Court has issued an indictment permitting it may be ejected or banned.
15. Nations that have been so sentenced by the Court will be ejected or banned.
16. The official performing an ejection or ban will promptly inform the region and Government.
17. The Serving Delegate may regulate the Regional Message Board as they see fit.
18. Such regulations may not prohibit speech which is in the context of TNP politics.
19. All actions of the WA Delegate, the Serving Delegate, or of their appointed Regional Officers related to this section will be subject to judicial review.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portion of the NationStates Rules.
Flamebaiting: Posts that are made with the aim of angering someone indirectly. Not outright flame, but still liable to bring angry replies. Flame baiting is a far more subtle and covert action; it is an underhanded tactic that is designed to provoke a response from another player. It's in the same context of trolling but with flamebaiting it's just the one person. Also included under flamebaiting is malicious quote editing, changing the contents of a quoted post without showing the original text, either through color changes or strike-out.
-
Trolling/Baiting/Gloating: Trolling is defined as posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). Someone disagreeing with you does not equate to trolling. Intent is incredibly important and will be judged by the moderators to the best of their abilities. Honest belief does not excuse trolling. Disagreements are expected and conducting yourself in a civil manner is ideal. Trollbaiting is the action of making posts that attract trolls. A prime example of trollbaiting would be gloating over the results of an election.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portion of the TNP Community Guidelines.
The Community Rules apply to platforms belonging to The North Pacific. This includes the forum (public areas, private areas, and private messages) and all affiliated Discord servers (public channels, private channels, and voice chats). If The North Pacific expands into additional platforms in the future, the Community Rules will also apply to them without first requiring specific enumeration in this document. Anyone who violates this code of conduct may be warned or banned from these spaces by the decision of the moderation team.
-
The North Pacific will not tolerate the promotion of hate or bigotry of any kind, nor will we permit any behavior that places other members of our community at risk. Anybody found to be engaging in such behavior may be subject to immediate and permanent removal from all community spaces. The below list of examples is not exhaustive, but provides a baseline picture:
Disparaging comments or slurs related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neuro(a)typicality, physical appearance, pregnancy status, veteran status, marital status, body size, age, race, national origin, ethnic origin, nationality, immigration status, language, religion or lack thereof, or other identity marker.

The Court took into consideration the RMB Guidelines.

The Court took into consideration the post made by NationStates moderation here.

The Court took into consideration prior rulings by the Court here, here, here, here, here, and here.

The Court opines the following:

On Standing
The petitioner was the one directly impacted by the government actions and policies that the Court has been asked to review. The petitioner’s posts were suppressed twice, once by Kastonvia, the Lead Gameside Advocate, and once by MadJack, the Delegate. The petitioner was also informed that subsequent posts of that nature, that is, transphobic posts, would be suppressed as well. There is no question of proper standing in this case.

On the Court’s Prior Ruling on the Delegate’s Authority to Staff the Executive Branch
This is not the first time the Court has been asked to review government action that the petitioner alleges violated their freedom of speech. It previously ruled in On the Delegate’s Authority to Staff the Executive Branch that it could not directly answer the question of whether the delegate violated the petitioner’s freedom of speech, so as not to prejudice any future criminal trial, and because the information needed to determine such a question would be best gathered and considered through the criminal trial process. We appreciate that any potential criminal case would undoubtedly take into account this ruling’s determination that MadJack and Kastonvia engaged in unconstitutional actions – as it should. But we must echo Justice Eluvatar from his dissent in that case. The facts that must be discovered and considered in such a criminal trial would aim to prove more than simply whether or not the actions committed were unconstitutional. Such a trial would be concerned with intent and possible deliberate malfeasance. Gross Misconduct is a very different charge than simply identifying whether or not some act is unconstitutional, as it requires looking beyond case law and prior precedent and how the two are applied to what is readily available to us when examining the question brought by the petitioner.

The Court was right to note that a request for review is not the proper venue to consider evidence intended to prove a case at a criminal trial, or to consider the questions relevant to that trial. But that does not preclude this Court from answering the question posed by DiamondComodo, nor does it preclude this Court from examining evidence relevant to determining strictly whether a constitutional violation occurred. The context in which we view what is provided in briefs, or what is publicly available to us, is very different from the context of a criminal trial. The Constitution charges us with answering his query and determining the legality of the actions of government officials. The possibility of a future criminal trial does not make free speech queries immune from this Court’s consideration. As Justice Eluvatar noted, if this Court believes it cannot consider a question, then it should not answer that question. And the Court erred in not doing so back then. We hereby overturn this portion of the ruling. The ruling’s conclusion, that the Delegate has broad authority to manage the executive staff, and that free speech is more limited for government officials, is still correct, and still useful in navigating the question before us in this review.

On the Authority to Suppress Posts
The Legal Code grants broad authority to the Delegate to “regulate the Regional Message Board as they see fit” in its onsite authority section. The petitioner asks the Court to review the use of the suppression power, which is a function of regional officer permissions to help moderate the Regional Message Board in The North Pacific. This message board is located squarely in space controlled not by The North Pacific, but by NationStates itself, and is what constitutes the core and almost entirety of the region’s gameside community. Suppression is included in what the Legal Code refers to as Regional Powers, which also includes border control, or the ability to eject and ban nations from the region. All of these powers are controlled and assigned by the Delegate and may be utilized in executing the Delegate’s regulation of the Regional Message Board. Suppression is a tool successive delegates have made available to every member of their cabinet since the creation of regional officers, and is the primary method of moderating the Regional Message Board, particularly given the Legal Code’s strict limitations to the use of border control powers. This power is not new, and predates the provisions added to the onsite authority laws for regional officers, but its use has spread dramatically since then. The Court recognizes that the Delegate has explicit authority to use these Regional Powers, including suppression. However, the onsite authority provisions also establish a right for judicial review of this regulation, which suggests that despite having the authority to use these powers, the Delegate may nevertheless use them improperly, and in ways contrary to the Bill of Rights.

On the Constitutionality of Suppression of Posts
The Court has ruled twice on the use of suppression power before. In its ruling in On the Delegate’s Authority to Staff the Executive Branch, the Court overturned a previous ruling, On the Suppression of Posts on the Regional Message Board, as it did not accept the reasoning that because the suppression of posts was a result of friendly banter, there was no harm done. In fact, the Court ruled that suppressing posts is inherently harmful, as suppressing free speech in any way is inherently harmful. But the Court has also ruled, repeatedly, that there are sometimes situations where speech may be restricted. What these rulings have in common is that speech is limited when allowing unfettered free speech would cause greater harm to the community or the proper functioning of the government. Free speech concerns must be balanced against other rights, and residents are not free to say whatever they want regardless of the context. The Court ruled in On the Speaker’s Power to End Debate that ending debate would necessarily restrict the free speech of citizens, but was nevertheless permitted because those free speech rights must be balanced against maintaining order in the Regional Assembly and fostering civilized debate, and reiterated that position in On the Use of the Speaker’s Power to End Debate and On the Speaker’s Power to Schedule Votes. It ruled in On Alterations to the Citizenship Oath that requiring the citizenship oath to be taken as written without permitting an identifier of choice did not violate free speech, and that altering the oath would render it invalid when considering other areas of law that mandated and defined the oath. In every case, the free speech rights of citizens were balanced against continued functional and orderly government. This logic was also present in the ruling in On the Delegate’s Authority to Staff the Executive Branch, which established that a nation’s free speech rights do not allow government officials to act contrary to their oaths, their tasks, or the direction of their superiors if that speech would contradict official government speech and their role as a member of the government. When acting in an official capacity and utilizing the government’s voice, a nation’s own personal voice must be balanced against their official role.

Free speech, then, is not without its limits. However, these rulings were all directly related to government speech or speech that could interfere with proper execution of government business. That is not the case with the petitioner’s situation, which is a resident expressing his opinion in public through two posts on the Regional Message Board and having those posts literally suppressed by two government officials. Given how often suppression is used, and how available it is to a variety of government officials over the years, it is easy to see how this power could have been abused or caused residents to rush to this Court for relief. And yet, for the better part of five years, that has not been the case. Instead, the moderation of the Regional Message Board has grown more sophisticated. Successive delegates have developed and built on the RMB Guidelines, which serve as a kind of equivalent to the more advanced and comprehensive TNP Community Guidelines that exist for The North Pacific’s offsite properties. Customs have developed and expectations have taken root by the residents who frequent the Regional Message Board. To name but one example, many residents, whether officially part of the region’s Gameside Advocates or not, will frequently point out and report instances where residents post more than once on the Regional Message Board successively. The RMB Guidelines specify that such posts may be subject to suppression, as well as any quoting of suppressed posts that violated the guidelines. It is wholly expected by the residents that the suppression will take place, and even that this is a good thing. This aspect of gameside culture is well-known, accepted, and commonplace.

Of course, that does not mean the regular occurrence of suppression is necessarily permissible under this Constitution, but it does underscore that suppression of posts is crucial and essential to the gameside community’s sense of order and how they, like the Regional Assembly on the forum, regulate a civilized place for public discussion that mitigates as much chaos as possible. To say that suppression in all cases is unconstitutional as a violation of free speech would have a similar negative impact on the Regional Message Board as it would on discussions in the Regional Assembly or conversation in the region’s Discord server. This Court looks to its prior rulings to assert that suppression, in general, is not an inherent violation of the Bill of Rights.

On the Constitutionality of Suppressing Specific Forms of Speech
It is not enough to say that suppression of posts is constitutional in the abstract. Prior rulings identify exceptions to what is an otherwise very broad freedom enshrined in our Bill of Rights. While the Delegate and the Lead Gameside Advocate had the authority to suppress the petitioner’s posts and that authority is consistent with the Constitution, the content of the speech is obviously where the line will be drawn. The Delegate would be hard-pressed to get away with this suppression, for instance, if the content of the post was concerned with political speech in the context of regional politics. The very clear exception to the Delegate’s regulation “as they see fit” is prohibiting political speech of this nature. But it is also not enough for the resident doing the posting to claim an otherwise offensive or actionable post is meant to comment on regional politics. The Legal Code has clear provisions permitting the Delegate to eject and ban nations which violate NationStates rules, so simply suppressing such posts is certainly permitted, even if the resident tries to wrap their violative posts in the trappings of “TNP politics.” Admittedly, it is not always easy to determine when this is occurring. Moderation by its nature often involves making judgment calls, and when those calls are challenged, they must be judged on a case by case basis.

While this Court did consider the brief submitted by Dreadton which asserted a Nationstates rule was violated, we believe the asserted offense, flamebaiting, to have been incorrect. Flamebaiting is understood to involve the targeting of a specific player, which the petitioner does not appear to have done. In our opinion, the posts could instead be examples of what NationStates constitutes as trolling. We draw this conclusion based on the nature of the posts themselves, which would invite outrage and disagreement and can clearly be seen to have angered many members of the community, particularly as they were unprompted and do not fit in any proper context that helps make better sense of them. Furthermore, the stated intent of the petitioner in making those posts is also known, as the petitioner admitted that he made the posts out of anger and acknowledges that the posts should not have been made. Naturally there is a great deal of subjective reasoning in determining whether these posts truly violate NationStates rules, but this Court recognizes that in suppressing posts that are deemed to violate NationStates rules, the Delegate would be acting with great restraint, given the Legal Code permits even more drastic action in response. In this particular case, however, neither the Delegate nor the Lead Gameside Advocate asserted the petitioner violated any NationStates rules. In addition, the RMB Guidelines do not contain a list similar to the NationStates rules that the Delegate or his officials could cite as being violated. Any similar list found in the TNP Community Guidelines would also not apply, despite Dreadton’s brief bringing them up, as they are explicitly designed for the region’s offsite properties and enforced by TNP’s administration team.

That being said, in seeking to foster constructive, positive dialogue and keeping the peace in the community, the Delegate has a great deal of leeway in moderating the Regional Message Board. It is not just this Court which believes this. Considering that our laws explicitly allow the Delegate to take action based on perceived violations of NationStates rules, we must also consider the Delegate’s relationship with the typical authority for such moderation of the gameside community, the NationStates moderators themselves. It would be unreasonable to assert that if a NationStates moderator chooses not to respond to a post reported on the Regional Message Board, the post is not actionable. Given the subjective nature of many posts, and the sheer number of them, not to mention the many other regions to moderate outside of The North Pacific, it would be unreasonable to expect every instance of moderation to be handled by NationStates moderators. It is expected for the region itself to pick up the slack, as can be seen in a post made by Sedgistan on the NationStates forum: “Players can manage an element of self-moderation over their RMBs, with the ability to suppress posts and eject/ban troublemakers. That means that minor issues are left to founders/delegates to sort out." We also know this view is still held by moderation all these years later, as was evident by the recent telegram shared with the Court by Dreadton and Bootsie. Moderation held that they only get involved for “egregious” spam, one of the most frequent causes of reports to moderation. Sedgistan goes on to say that "Regions also have certain cultures to them, reflected on their RMBs," and then names specific examples of how what is actionable in one community may not be in another. Much of our culture is in our robust legal culture and our broad freedom of speech. But our laws cannot be consistently applied to every single specific case of questionable posts. Every situation requires its own consideration, and sometimes it comes down to our Delegate and regional officers to make the call that would otherwise be for NationStates moderation.

Finally, there is the subject matter of the posts to consider. Clearly these posts were unrelated to any discussion of regional politics and had nothing to do with the player’s engagement with other players in their capacity as a nation residing in the region or the game of NationStates. The subject spoke to issues outside of the game, the kind of subject that often prompts challenges to moderation in the first place. The posts were transphobic in nature, and deeply offensive to many members of the community. When acting in a capacity as a moderator on the Regional Message Board, the Delegate has the most leeway in terms of our region’s laws, as these laws are stretched to their limits when considering subjects that are strictly outside of the framework of the game in which they were created. This does not mean that any action the Delegate or the regional officers take on speech in this context cannot be reviewed by this Court, as there are any number of benign topics that would not warrant shutting down speech. One could imagine a scenario where the oft-cited debate on whether pineapple can be on a pizza might lead the Delegate to suppress posts he disagrees with. This has nothing to do with regional politics after all, and can be seen as a player speaking in their capacity as a person playing NationStates. But as with the old ruling overturned by the Court, the seemingly harmless nature of the posts and the perceived joking on the part of the Delegate, by pretending to have a heavy hand on the topic, would not be permissible limits to speech.

The petitioner’s posts were deliberately inflammatory and designed to inflict distress, they violated the general good-natured character of the community and defied the inclusive and kind environment the Delegate deliberately intended to foster with his policies and practices. The Delegate has the legal authority to regulate the Regional Message Board and the constitutional authority to restrict some forms of speech in the interest of the greater good of the community. And the Delegate has a secondary role as a moderator for the gameside community in addition to or in the absence of NationStates moderation, particularly in the most subjective or low priority situations as with this one. We find that the petitioner’s rights under the Bill of Rights were not violated by the suppression of his posts.

On Extralegal Moderation
As we have already stated, this Court is not the place to adjudicate the specifics of criminal behavior in the context of the Legal Code, which is best suited for a criminal trial. But we are also cognizant of the difficulty in applying the Legal Code to situations which are properly under the jurisdiction of NationStates itself. Everywhere else in the region, such extralegal moderation concerns are rightfully handled by the administrative team and governed by the TNP Community Guidelines. But in the case of the Regional Message Board, extralegal moderation is handled by NationStates moderation. And when they cannot act, only the Delegate and those with the power to suppress, eject, or ban can. This Court cannot speak to constitutionality or criminal concerns in this context and affirms what is already the understanding of The North Pacific’s government and much of its community: there are some problems and actions way outside the scope of our ability to adjudicate, and outside the scope of the region’s Constitution. Action taken by the Delegate or regional officers in response to these issues is not reviewable by this Court and should never be accepted by this Court if presented in the form of a request for review. The problem is telling the difference, a problem exacerbated by the nature of the Regional Message Board.

This Court does not mean to suggest that officials will “know it when they see it,” though the topic and severity of the content is an important guidepost in determining the nature of legally actionable or extralegally actionable posts. Posts clearly related to regional events, government officials, policies, laws, elections, and in the context of the game of NationStates itself, all would be legally actionable. Posts discussing all of the above outside of the context of NationStates, especially referring to players controlling the nations in a strictly “real life” context, are more likely to be extralegally actionable. Extreme language or emotion, particularly if they rise to a threatening or personally concerning level, would also warrant extralegal review. When considering such posts, NationStates rules should be consulted, and TNP Community Guidelines can also serve as a point of reference. If none of these rules are clearly violated, the posts are likely legally actionable, and the Delegate and regional officers may be subject to judicial review. These are hardly exhaustive examples, but we hope they serve as an aid in determining how to approach handling such posts in the future.

On the Court’s Prior Ruling on the Constitutionality of Prohibiting Sedition
The Court ruled in 2013 that the Bill of Rights established a right to free speech that cannot be infringed, except in emergency situations per Section 11 of the Bill of Rights. This ruling was cited by the petitioner as the primary supporting ruling for his assertion that his freedom of speech rights were violated, and was also addressed by Zyvetskistaahn in his brief. That brief goes on to identify a tension that exists between that ruling and a number of subsequent cases related to free speech. This is an accurate observation. That 2013 ruling was short and to the point, and left absolutely no doubt that freedom of speech could never be abridged. The Court, in properly following the precedent set by this ruling, would have no choice in every subsequent free speech case but to conclude that virtually no limits could be placed on free speech at all. And yet, that is not what happened. In every subsequent ruling on free speech, this Court conveniently forgot that this ruling existed. Instead of an absolute firewall preventing any limitation to speech, we have years of precedent upholding reasonable limits to free speech. Clearly this Court has already effectively overturned this ruling, but it is time to do so properly. We hereby overturn this ruling in its entirety.

The Court arrived at the correct conclusion in that ruling, but did so in an overly broad manner. The law prohibiting sedition was unconstitutional, not because no limits can be placed on free speech at all, but because the limits placed on speech were too great. Such a law would have chilled speech critical of the government, and led residents to doubt what was safe to say publicly. As we noted earlier, the Legal Code clearly protects speech made in the context of TNP politics. Other provisions protect against speech that enters the realm of treason, and the behavior that the sedition law seemed to target can be properly addressed without such an additional provision. With other means available, and an overly broad restriction to political speech that is clearly protected, there was every reason to strike down that law. But there is also every reason to be cautious and deliberate when doing so, in order to avoid being unable to effectively regulate or govern the region when other kinds of harm may be done to the community, and that is what the prior ruling risked doing.
 
I thank the court for its ruling, and the expansive reasoning it has set out.
 
Back
Top