Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by Ropanama on the Regional Ban of Ropanama
Opinion drafted by Chief Justice Pallaith, joined by Justices Vivanco and Dalimbar
The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed
here by Ropanama.
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed
here by Dreadton,
here by St George,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here, and
here by Marcus Antonius,
here by Sil Dorsett, and
here by Picairn.
The Court took into consideration the relevant portion of the Bill of Rights of The North Pacific.
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.
The Court took into consideration the relevant portion 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.
The Court took into consideration the relevant portion of the Legal Code of The North Pacific.
Section 7.3: Onsite Authority
16. Violators of NationStates rules, residents banned offsite by forum administration, or residents who maintain a nation in a region or organization at war with The North Pacific, may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
17. 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.
18. Nations recruiting for other regions may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
19. Nations for which the Court has issued an indictment permitting it may be ejected or banned.
20. Nations that have been so sentenced by the Court will be ejected or banned.
21. The official performing an ejection or ban will promptly inform the region and Government.
22. The Serving Delegate may regulate the Regional Message Board as they see fit.
23. Such regulations may not prohibit speech which is in the context of TNP politics.
24. Serving Frontier Delegates may regulate the Regional Message Board in territories of The North Pacific as they see fit, but the Serving Delegate may direct or overrule such regulation as they see fit.
25. Nations that have been banned for any of the above reasons may be subject to summary ejection or banning from any territories of The North Pacific.
26. All actions of the WA Delegate, the Serving Delegate, Frontier WA Delegate, Serving Frontier Delegate, or of their appointed Regional Officers related to this section will be subject to judicial review.
The Court took into consideration the
NationStates Rules.
The Court took into consideration the
TNP Community Guidelines.
The Court took into consideration the
RMB Guidelines.
The Court took into consideration prior rulings by the Court
here,
here, and
here.
The Court opines the following:
On Standing
The petitioner is the nation subjected to ban under review and has filed this request pursuant to their rights under the Bill of Rights.
On the Regional Ban of Ropanama
The Court is asked to review the ban of a resident conducted by one of the region’s border control officials due to “violation of Community Guidelines.” The petitioner argues that the ban was unlawful due to the fact the legal code does not enumerate the stated reason among the valid causes for a ban. Additional briefs highlight several key areas that the Court agrees should also be considered. The Court in this case will consider the following questions:
1) Whether Community Guidelines can be considered a valid cause for a ban
2) Whether the Court’s allowance for extralegal moderation in
On the Regulation of the Regional Message Board makes this particular ban permissible
3) Whether the reason cited for a ban must be properly cited for a ban to be valid, even if under review actionable behavior can be found to warrant a ban
Due to inconsistency in explaining why bans are carried out over the years, and continued dispute over where such authority comes from, the Court feels it necessary to establish common and consistent practices for officials to utilize when exercising the Executive’s authority to eject and ban nations from The North Pacific. The questions we are considering will form the basis of those practices.
1) The official who conducted the ban under review stated that Community Guidelines is deemed to be a “catch all” explanation for banning, and provided evidence going back over a year that the petitioner had a history of problematic posts and actionable behavior that was never deemed to rise to the level of a ban until finally they deemed the full weight of behavior to be worthy of a ban. The Court is cognizant that this is partly true, as a review of the thread where bans are reported shows that in fact Community Guidelines is typically cited alongside NationStates rules violations as a justification for bans. Both lack specificity as to why a ban was conducted, though obviously NationStates rules are found in the legal code as a justification for a ban. Community Guidelines are not. The plain and simple truth is that there is no Legal Code provision that permits a ban on such grounds, and so a ban lacking actionable violations as enumerated under the Legal Code obviously would not ordinarily stand.
That being said, the Court has previously recognized that certain situations call for extralegal moderation, as NationStates moderation is not always able or willing to respond when requested. Our Community Guidelines are not designed for application to the Regional Message Board, but as we have stated previously, they can be used as a point of reference when determining if extralegal moderation is called for. Given its particular purpose and its tangential relation to the use of banning authority as we understand it, the Court feels even in these cases it would be inappropriate for officials to cite Community Guidelines as a reason for a ban. This may give the wrong impression that the guidelines are enforceable in the same way that other enumerated causes are. Instead, officials should cite specifically what the cause of the ban was and explain that it was done extralegally. The cause may be a specific example the community guidelines outline, or they may be particular to the action warranting the ban, but it should be specifically explained and clear that the ban is intended to be extralegal. If a ban encompasses both violations enumerated in the Legal Code and extralegal violations, officials should continue to cite both, and the ban will be reviewable on the grounds of the enumerated violations.
There is fair concern as to how we should guard against potential abuse of this unreviewable type of ban. The Court relies on the scarcity of situations that would fall outside the enumerated causes, and the fact that regular use of extralegal bans would constitute a reasonably suspicious pattern of behavior for officials to engage in. While the bans would not regularly be subject to review, the pattern of extensive use of extralegal bans absolutely would be subject to review, and under this scenario the Court could consider the bans for reference. The conduct of our government officials and those carrying out their orders is always subject to review, whether in this Court or in the Regional Assembly.
2) Broadly speaking, officials are empowered to conduct extralegal bans as laid out in our previous ruling
On the Regulation of the Regional Message Board, and we reaffirm that extralegal bans are not reviewable. If the official conducting the ban had cited an extralegal cause for the ban, this Court would not have even taken up this review. However, the parameters of what type of ban it is, and the terms utilized, are murky and we have endeavored to clarify them in the preceding section and the section to follow.
3) The review of bans has no process, like a criminal trial, that must be strictly adhered to. A petitioner asks the Court to consider their ban and whether it was justified. The officials carrying out the bans are mandated to report their bans, but this too lacks any process. Given that, the answer to this question is quite simple. If the petitioner committed acts that warranted a ban, the ban must be upheld. The government provided ample evidence of a pattern of behavior that regularly involved violating NationStates rules, and we can even identify what those violations were. They covered a wide variety of areas, including but not limited to Trolling, Flaming, and Adult Content. Given this, the Court sees clear cause for a ban. Of course, the reason we are here is because the official reporting the ban did not cite NationStates rules either broadly or specifically, but cited Community Guidelines. But legally speaking, it does not matter what the official said in the report. In fact, the official could have stopped at saying the petitioner was banned, with no further detail, and that would have been sufficient under the law. There’s a very good reason why officials explain their bans. The Court can easily imagine a scenario where bans are regularly challenged for lacking any specificity, and we happen to believe that such reports should be as clear and transparent as possible. But a ban does not cease to be valid just because the reason for conducting it was incorrectly or insufficiently reported. A ban ceases to be valid if there is no legal basis for having been carried out. Upon review of this ban, this Court easily identified cause for a ban, and so the ban is upheld. We will not overturn bans that did not conform to red tape that does not exist.
That being said, the Court feels that current practice is in need of correction. All action is subject to judicial review, and all causes for bans are outlined in the Legal Code. Therefore, the current setup for bans and their review adequately provides protection for residents. It is a fair expectation for those being banned to know why it is happening, and if they feel it is necessary, to challenge the assertion of the government. Every ban is recorded with a reason for why it was done, as has been the common practice for years. This should continue. Moving forward, the Executive should avoid “catch-all” justification for conducting bans and be as specific as possible when reporting bans. If the ban is for violations of NationStates rules, those rules that were specifically broken should be cited in the report. As we previously stated, if a ban is intended to be extralegal in nature, the offense should be cited as specifically as possible, and the specifics can be sourced from our Community Guidelines if applicable. If clarity is missing from the report and officials wish to clarify it after it has been made, they are free and even encouraged to do so. As we have stated, a ban is either justified or it is not, no matter what wording the officials use when reporting it, or if they edited it the next day or spelled out their reasoning in greater length after initially being vaguer. If the Regional Assembly feels compelled to outline a process for these reports, and require they be adhered to for bans to be valid; or to mandate this Court’s suggestions as outlined above, they are welcome to do so. This Court does not mean for these suggestions to be binding on officials, as we have already acknowledged that the process requires very little to work. But if our officials adjust their process to err on the side of specifics and to be consistent in their process, it is better for all involved and should resolve conflicts over bans before they even begin.
Holding
The ban of Ropanama is upheld. Community Guidelines are not a valid reason for carrying out an ejection or ban. Bans are not invalidated after review because an official cited the wrong reason when reporting the ban, as long as there is actual legal cause for the ban.
