[Private] R4R Siberian Union ban

The thread is here:

The nation seems to have CTE 150 days ago, so I don't know how Hulldom could ban it yesterday. I suspect that the nation was deleted by mods, in which case I would be unwilling to take the case.

I received a clarification from Hulldom, it's this nation instead:

Banned for this post:

I propose we take it. Do any of you wish to serve as Moderating Justice?

Given 7.3.19 of the LC I don’t believe we strictly have a choice in whether to take it (or that’s at least the standard I’m used to).

I am willing to serve as Moderating if neither of you wish to.

Lord Dominator:

Given 7.3.19 of the LC I don’t believe we strictly have a choice in whether to take it (or that’s at least the standard I’m used to).

I am willing to serve as Moderating if neither of you wish to.

Click to expand...

The review also has to be prompt, per 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."), so I shouldn't have phrased it as an optional, yes. Though I lean heavily towards Hulldom's ban and ejection being legal, per the Delegate's RMB policing power (I also really can't see how apparent doxxing falls under any free speech clause, but I also don't see the joke claimed). I would prefer not to be the moderating justice, as given my known friendship with Hulldom I want to be ready to be recused if there is any concern over my ability to judge the case objectively.

This isn’t an optional thing in my view. Have LD moderate it, so the wheels start turning. We’re still going to be discussing it regardless, so if your friendship is an issue here you may have to recuse from the entire matter using the same logic. Many of us are friends in general though so I wouldn’t let that force you out of the discussion.

Pallaith:

Many of us are friends in general though so I wouldn’t let that force you out of the discussion.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's an issue for either of us, but if the petitioner believes it creates a bias then I will recuse myself, and in that situation I would prefer not to be moderating justice.

I highly doubt it will be an issue, nor do I think it’s something that needs to be recused for (at least on practical grounds).

@Lord Dominator will you begin the case with paperwork etc? Otherwise I'll post the paperwork (Naming Hulldom as the government official and you as moderating justice) in a few hours.

Ope sorry, was at work and missed that

I hope I didn't step on your toes, but my thinking is that since we are obliged to do a prompt review I would rather get the paperwork out on the 29th than 30th. If the deadline or anything doesn't work for you then it's yours to change.
And just for the record, I have notified Hulldom directly as well as through the forum.

Attempted Socialism:

I hope I didn't step on your toes, but my thinking is that since we are obliged to do a prompt review I would rather get the paperwork out on the 29th than 30th. If the deadline or anything doesn't work for you then it's yours to change.
And just for the record, I have notified Hulldom directly as well as through the forum.

Click to expand...

Oh no, perfectly fine - I was planning on doing it today anyways

I know there's still 36 hours left until the deadline, but I don't think it's a close call at all. 1) Hulldom exercised the Delegate's RMB regulation powers, and 2) the speech wasn't protected. While one could make an argument that it was supposed to be a joke (Or something not to be taken serious), I don't think that would change the case on a fundamental level, since there was nothing around the post to indicate that it was meant to be funny which would allow us to second-guess Hulldom's actions, and even if there had been, "it was just a joke" does not make an apparent doxxing attempt protected speech anyway. In fact, since it looked like a doxxing attempt (Fake or not TBD at the time), I'd say Hulldom was duty-bound to act on the post, as per the Bill of Right article 2. Suppression and ejection were definitely warranted, and I don't see the ban as out of bounds either.

I would agree

I did close the time for briefs (late, apologies). I don’t think I have anything to add to the above outside of making is more official reading, but do you have any thoughts @Pallaith?

Okay some thoughts:

There is no “it was just a joke” defense to justify saying whatever you want. We have a handful of cases from the past maintaining there are limits to free speech, and the Delegate has broad moderation authority. The last free speech case the Court heard will be crucial in responding to this one, though I would note that one dealt with suppression whereas this is a ban. The Delegate has the discretion to utilize the ban as opposed to suppression however, particularly if the offense is a more grievous one - as doxxing would be.

In affirming this ban (which I believe we should obviously do), we can address the levels of response, suppression vs. banning, and how this is an appropriate use of moderation authority given the nature of the offense. Additionally, the petitioner appeals to ease of communication and being able to follow the Delegate’s rules - there’s an assertion that it’s difficult to know what to do or not to do, and that the Delegate’s ban could effectively happen on a whim based on how he explained it. I don’t agree with this argument but it may need to be addressed. It’s possible to communicate with the Delegate and with other officials, to join the forum to send messages, or just utilizing TGs on site.

Faking a doxxing is a specific offense describing this one case - I think we can affirm that the Delegate can find unique offenses sometimes and that not every single one needs to fit into a specific category (setting aside that you could easily put that one in a broader category like site rules). That doesn’t mean that suddenly anyone who posts with pieces of the same content he did will run afoul of some new rule - the Delegate’s power is discretionary in this case, and always reviewable. And the provision allowing regulation of the RMB is broad on purpose.

Worst case scenario, this is a ban where the Delegate erred on the side of caution. That falls under his judgment and trying to moderate the community, we should have a high standard not only for the use of that power, but for deciding whether or not the Delegate is simply acting on a whim.

I don’t think this is a complicated case, I don’t think much ink needs to be spilled on it. But those are all the relevant dimensions that could fit into a decision on it I think.

I agree with everything Pallaith, and I would like to comment on just one bit, namely your worst case scenario. Because like you I don't see that as being a compelling argument to find for the petitioner, since I can't see any evidence that allows us to second-guess Hulldom, and even if we thought so, let's run through that hypothetical scenario: We find that the ban (or both ban and ejection) was excessive, okay. After next election a different delegate is elected. They see some possible doxxing (or a similar threat). Knowing this case, they are more careful with suppression and ejection. This time it turns out that the doxxing attempt is real, and the info stays up. Someone's private info gets out on the internet, with TNP as the source.
I don't want a future Delegate to hesitate when it comes to moderating apparent doxxing.
Hulldom acted within their powers as Delegate, and based on the information at the time, in the best interests of the region.

Sounds like we’re in agreement on the basics of this at least - couple good points I do agree to include as a base that you raised Pallaith

LD are you willing to give it a go with a first draft?

Attempted Socialism:

LD are you willing to give it a go with a first draft?

Click to expand...

Yes, I just might not have one until Friday

Standing:
The petitioner is a nation 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 a message on the RMB that appeared to contain personal details such as addresses both IP and home, 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 such as On the Regulation of the Regional Message Board that rule on the specifics of it, 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 mandated by law or otherwise appropriate, provided 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 a 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 both cases, a justification 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 labeled 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.

Conclusion:
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 conclusion bit may not be needed and is certainly not at all well written, but I was running out of writing steam at that point so I have that.

Links and whatnot to prior rulings, NS rules, and our laws are left out of this draft for my ease of ability in making it.

This is really solid stuff and I don’t think we have to reinvent the wheel when ruling on if a ban was proper. We’re not wrestling with major legal principles here. At first glance I don’t see anything wrong with it, but I’ll take another look tomorrow and also give @Attempted Socialism a chance to weigh in. Maybe I’ll have additional drafting comments then.

I don't have any substantial comments, excellent work. I have a few grammar and minor phrasing suggestions, so I will post a link to my Drive with the suggestions once I have written them.

I have made a version of the draft available on my Drive, using the suggest changes function. I don't think any of the changes are substantial to the ruling, but there are some instances of unclear language or scrivener's errors that I would want changed before posting. I suggest adding a line to the conclusion (And rename it), where we make it explicit that we are not overturning the decision by the Delegate.
Apart from that we appear to be in complete agreement.

Yeah I think that’s fit to print. Wow we got one of these out fairly quickly? Good to see.

Looks good to me

Pallaith:

Yeah I think that’s fit to print. Wow we got one of these out fairly quickly? Good to see.

Click to expand...

Helps that it is pretty open and shut :p

Lord Dominator:

Looks good to me

Helps that it is pretty open and shut :p

Click to expand...

If you accept these changes, I think you can post the decision.

And that is posted, I do believe I got all the changes and made sure all the appropriate bits were quoted or linked to.

One thing: the case title reproduces Hulldom's (and my) initial error by adding "n" to the name. It is properly Siberia Union, as the petitioner wrote in the title, and not Siberian Union.
The rest looks good.

Attempted Socialism:

One thing: the case title reproduces Hulldom's (and my) initial error by adding "n" to the name. It is properly Siberia Union, as the petitioner wrote in the title, and not Siberian Union. The rest looks good.

Click to expand...

And fixed

I'll copy it into the record soon. I've been slightly preoccupied with the recent diplomatic fallout, which has generally taken my NS time.