[R4R] To Unban Siberia Union (Me)

I want to appeal my ban for "Faking Doxxing" on The North Pacific regional message board, and reduce the ban to a warning.

1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?
The banning of my main nation Siberia Union by the current delegate (Hulldom) from the NationStates "The North Pacific" region and regional message board.

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?

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...

The Nation in question that has banned me based it off the "Faking Doxxing" argument, view the ban reason here. I believe that the ban violated point 2 on the bill of rights, though not fully, and should have given me something less then a ban (That not being something preventing me from posting on the regional message board.) DOXXing is an act that I would not preform, and by this banning of me, they are also by extension stating that anyone who mentions a fake address, phone number, IP address, Service provider, or other such media will be banned based on the seemingly unknowable standards of Hulldom. Anyone who saw the message could tell it was a joke. I think it should be suppressed, but not end up in me getting banned.
3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?

None that I am aware of at the moment.

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 affected as The North Pacific is a region that I prefer above all others, and me getting banned from it and being sent to the Rejected realms based on the standards of a delegate that I have no contact with up to this point is not a good look on my repuation as "The one that got banned for fake doxxing". I have been in this region for at least since the Summer of 2021, and have wanted to stay in this region for years to come, and I do not want to be permanently banned from it. (This is for the inclusion of the rights violated.) Point. 2 on the bill of rights in my opinion has been violated, though not fully, as Hulldom banned me for the most stupidest of jokes using "I feel like "faking out a doxxing" should be a pretty clearly obvious reason to ban someone." Though the standards to ban someone are on the forums and some people on the regional message board do not have a forum account to look at these standards, or where to look. Some things are not super clear to everyone, and the banning randomly for stupid jokes, and not gaining immediate knowledge of it is in my opinion a slight abuse of point 7.3.17 on the legal code of The North Pacific, here is the law.

17. The Serving Delegate may regulate the Regional Message Board as they see fit.

Click to expand...

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.

None at the moment.

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

I had to ask around on the regional message board to gain immediate information as to why I was banned. I should not have to do this, as this implies that the Delegate banned on a whim or personal reasons and could leave the banned user thinking that the delegate is tyrannical in nature and might prompt some further action.

FYI, if you would like to appeal your ban via judicial review you should use the template.

Done

The Court will hear the case. @Lord Dominator will be the Moderating Justice.

The Court recognises @Hulldom as the respondent in the case and invites them to make a submission. The Court also invites any other interested party to submit briefs.

Deadline for submission is on Tuesday, the 4th of April, at 00.00 GMT.

I will keep this necessarily pretty brief and, well, I'm afraid without the panache of legalese that the Court would ordinarily expect as I don't speak it.

I don't think the issue here should revolve around my right to have suppressed the post. While nations are, of course, guaranteed the right to free speech as per §2 of the Bill of Rights, §8 establishes that the Constitution and Legal Code establish where I can use my powers to ban and eject.

I would point the court to Sections 7.3.11 and 7.3.17 of the Legal Code to establish my authority on the matter. However the ban was technically done under 7.3.11 of the Code and indeed, the OSRS that governs the site states that privacy violations are rule breaking behavior.

The NationStates OSRS:

Players on NationStates have a reasonable expectation that their privacy will be respected. It is not permitted to post or otherwise share another player's personally-identifying information (i.e. social media accounts, IP addresses, postal addresses, E-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other real-world identifying information).

Click to expand...

Clause 7.3.11 is clear that I have the power to ban violators of site rules. I believed that a site rule was broken.

Regarding whether the ban was the right thing to do, I should still think so. While unfortunately I have no log of the post, I can say that when you are moderating a board like ours, in contrast to the Discord (where I also serve as a Moderator, but strictly in an Out-of-Character capacity), we don't have the benefit of a lot of lead-in time nor of really assessing intent. When the rules are clear, and when a player makes a post with an IP address and an Xbox Live account that I cannot verify are real, I have to presume it is, in fact, what it looks like at face value even if (a) it later turns out to be faked or (b) the intent isn't malicious (well, at least on the latter).

Regardless, I thank the Court for their time and do hope they can move with due deliberate speed on this matter.

--edit - nevermind, not sure what I pressed to post this --

Hulldom:

I will keep this necessarily pretty brief and, well, I'm afraid without the panache of legalese that the Court would ordinarily expect as I don't speak it.

I don't think the issue here should revolve around my right to have suppressed the post. While nations are, of course, guaranteed the right to free speech as per §2 of the Bill of Rights, §8 establishes that the Constitution and Legal Code establish where I can use my powers to ban and eject.

I would point the court to Sections 7.3.11 and 7.3.17 of the Legal Code to establish my authority on the matter. However the ban was technically done under 7.3.11 of the Code and indeed, the OSRS that governs the site states that privacy violations are rule breaking behavior.

Clause 7.3.11 is clear that I have the power to ban violators of site rules. I believed that a site rule was broken.

Regarding whether the ban was the right thing to do, I should still think so. While unfortunately I have no log of the post, I can say that when you are moderating a board like ours, in contrast to the Discord (where I also serve as a Moderator, but strictly in an Out-of-Character capacity), we don't have the benefit of a lot of lead-in time nor of really assessing intent. When the rules are clear, and when a player makes a post with an IP address and an Xbox Live account that I cannot verify are real, I have to presume it is, in fact, what it looks like at face value even if (a) it later turns out to be faked or (b) the intent isn't malicious (well, at least on the latter).

Regardless, I thank the Court for their time and do hope they can move with due deliberate speed on this matter.

Click to expand...

Since I am starting to get used to TSP, here is a log of that post if you wanted it

(I was going to put the log here but it seems like out of some sort of internal anger I deleted that post without looking at it, but here is what is generally looked like.

"Coolkid2007
IP: 1286.123.124
Address: Madison street 17(something)
ISP: T-Mobile
(Something else here)"

While it is true that the interested part in question, Siberia Union, had the right of freedom of speech, the ownership of this right does not come without its consequences, or reactions.

On a relevant previous ruling regarding Government Officials' actions against Freedom of Speech.

The Court's previous rilings have already stated that the authorities can, in fact, terminate a nation's freedom of speech in the interest of the region. I would like to remind the Court of the Ruling On the Speaker's Power to End Debate, in which the Speaker used their powers to end a Regional Assembly debate. The inquiry at the time discussed that such action infringed on their freedom of expression and of speech, blinded by the Bill of Rights.

The action of this previous ruling was already damaging on another member of the region and it wouldn't be able to become a law as stated in the ruling.

"Looking first to the case at hand, we find a thread seeking to amend the Bill of Rights to legalize extrajudicial action against a particular citizen. This proposal would not have passed Constitutional muster, and would have been in direct conflict with the very document it sought to amend. It could never have become law. As such, it is reasonable to say that the discussion in question lacked merit, viability, and legality."

Click to expand...

How was this case solved? The Constitution provides the Speaker the administration of the RA, and it referred back to the end phrase of Article 2 of the Bill of Rights

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...

And so, the Court delivered the following:

Under the Bill of Rights segment also mentioned previously, the Court believes that all government officials are obligated by law to act in good faith in discharging their duties.
The Court believes that the Speaker does possess the right to unilaterally table proposals, if their continued debate is not reasonably in the best interests of the region. The Constitution grants this discretion, and the Bill of Rights in effect obligates the Speaker to exercise said discretion if he or she feels it is appropriate.

Click to expand...

On what the law states currently regarding this particular case.
I believe this is a simple case, similar to the one reviewed before. As the Delegate Hulldom has pointed up in its brief, regarding bans, we can see this power, brought upon by the Bill of Rights, restricted to the regulation of the Constitution or the Legal Code.

8. The regional power of ejection and banning may not be granted or exercised, nor forum bans imposed, unless expressly authorized pursuant to the Constitution or the Legal Code. Any ejected or banned nation is entitled to prompt judicial review of the matter.

Click to expand...

7.3.11, as referred to by the Delegate, states the following:

11. Violators of NationStates rules, or residents banned offsite by forum administration, may be subject to summary ejection or banning

Click to expand...

However, I believe it is also worthy of examining 7.3.17.

17. The Serving Delegate may regulate the Regional Message Board as they see fit.

Click to expand...

For that is the correct legal section by which the Delegate has the power of regulation of the RMB and by such, being able to ban as it goes, regarding always their link to TNP Law and Politics. Of course, this R4R is completely fair game, when it comes to it being able to being reviewed;

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.

Click to expand...

And since said section rules over Onsite Authority, and it is an action of the Delegate, it is worthy by legal standards to look into it.

On the claims of the interested part of a joke.

While it may be true that the interested part was joking, and that the information revealed was indeed false, does saying it was a joke make it less? Was it really so obvious as stated by the interested part?
When looking at something in a text, without any kind of tone interpretations or indicators, one can easily misinterpretate the situation. And one can't control what the other person may feel like. However, doing something jokingly doesn't take away of the fact that it happened.

Let's work with this hypothesis: I'm an active member of the RMB and everyday I jokingly tell someone in the chat, to "off themselves". While between that person and I or some others of the RMB that could be considered a joke, that on itself doesn't bind everyone else to see it like that, and when a moderation team comes and reviews the action, it still is a bad action. And in the terms of doxxing, if I jokingly with a friend doxxed them, or even acted like it, others and outsides would look at this with weary eyes, won't they?

Conclussion.

I do not believe there was such breach of the Freedom of Speech per se, as if it was, it was lawfully acted upon by the delegate's power, acting in the best interests of the region and under the powers granted to him by the law, and that such an action was the correct course of action at that time.

Didn't the case already ended or something?

The IC 1101 Empire:

Didn't the case already ended or something?

Click to expand...

The deadline for briefs for this case is the 4th

The deadline for briefs has passed, and the Court will now deliberate.

Its been around a business week, (5 days), any updates?
(I all ready know what the verdict most likely is.)

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by The IC 1101 Empire.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by @Hulldom.
The Court took into consideration the further information provided by the petitioner here.
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by @Vivanco.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Constitution of The North Pacific:

Article 3. The Delegate and Vice Delegate
2. The Delegate may eject and ban nations from the region as permitted by law, and will eject or ban nations from the region when required by law.

Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of The Bill of Rights:

8. The regional power of ejection and banning may not be granted or exercised, nor forum bans imposed, unless expressly authorized pursuant to the Constitution or the Legal Code. Any ejected or banned nation is entitled to prompt judicial review of the matter.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the prior ruling made by the Court On the Regulation of the Regional Message Board.

Standing:
The petitioner is a nation that was ejected and banned, and as such is entitled to judicial review of the same pursuant to Article 8 of the Bill of Rights.

Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, by their own admittance, posted a message on the RMB that appeared to contain personal details, such as both IP and home addresses, later indicating it to be both fake and a joke. Their nation was ejected and banned by the serving Delegate under section 7.3.11 of the Legal Code.

Consideration of the Case:
Taking into account both the Legal Code and prior rulings on the specific application of it, such as On the Regulation of the Regional Message Board, the Delegate and their Regional Officers have broad authority to regulate the Regional Message Board. Certainly the usage of that authority is subject to judicial review, such as this, as is mandated by law or otherwise appropriate, and the law requires that those actions are in reasonably good faith to help the community and absent evidence of abuse or misuse of these powers outside the law, NationStates rules, and TNP Community Guidelines. In this instance, the post in question, while deleted, is indicated to have looked like it contained personally identifiable information, and thus constitute doxxing. This is both a defined violation of NationStates rules and very reasonably something to prohibit for the health of the community; thus any suppression of the post in question would have been entirely reasonable. Further, while the Legal Code limits the use of ejection and banning of resident nations, violations of NationStates rules is one of the clearly defined allowed reasons, and as doxxing is itself a violation of those rules usage of the powers of ejection and banning are entirely reasonable. In either case, the excuse of the post being a joke does not make it less subject to the RMB regulation powers ascribed to the Delegate and their officers, particularly when a given post is not clearly labelled as such, or when there is not any reasonable to verify that it is actually one, as in any nearly instance of potential doxxing. Finally, while the petitioner queries how any moderation actions of the RMB are carried out, the Delegate has followed the law in providing public notification of the ejection and ban in the legally prescribed place and all rules and laws in question are provided on the regional WFE directly or very nearly so, and the Delegate retains broad regulation powers regardless as described by prior rulings.

Holding:
The ejection and ban of the petitioner's nation by the Delegate was done entirely consistent with regional law and precedent relating to the same. The Court sees no reason to overturn the Delegate’s decision in this case.