- Pronouns
- It
- TNP Nation
- Simone_Republic
1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?
The Open Elections Act. Currently at vote, https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9199284/
The wording is as follows:
“Chapter 4 of the Legal Code will be amended to include Section 4.8: Private Campaign Messages as follows:
The Election Commission will publicly maintain a list of citizens who would prefer not to receive private campaign messages from or on behalf of candidates for elected office, and private campaign messages for or against reopening nominations for an elected office.
Citizens may ask their name be added to the list of citizens described in this section via posting in a designated forum thread in the Regional Assembly forum.
The Election Commission will post the list of citizens described in this section with each post announcing the opening of candidacy declarations.”
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, Act 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 and its territories."
Plea 1: The highlight “and shall be encouraged” is my highlight.
3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?
Mainly R 66 establishes that the TNP Community Guidelines also apply to the forum. To quote the ruling from R 66, on the portion “On the Constitutionality of Suppressing Specific Forms of Speech”, "[t]he 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."
I also plead on the argument that the Court's prior ruling does not allow suppression of speech with regards to regional politics, and that argument is violated by the Open Elections Act.
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 standing as "[a]nyone may submit a request to the Court for a review of government policy or law” under Chapter 2/1of the Court procedures and I am currently a citizen of The North Pacific. I have a particular interest as having previously used direct messages to campaign for office, including the May 2024 General Election where I campaigned for Delegate. Also, I would invite the Court to take the opportunity affirm the argument that challenges under the Bill of Rights are open to everyone .
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.
I believe there is a compelling regional interest in that the Bill of Rights is an integral part of the region, and that the law is actually at vote, and voters would therefore benefit from knowing if the law itself is constitutional or otherwise. I am not requesting an immediate ruling, however, since the next election is not due until July.
6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?
As a personal recommendation, I would simply suggest that anyone who does not want to be contacted for DM purposes mark it as such on their forum accounts (such as on their signatures on their “about them” page (and this is relevant since DIscord is integrated with citizenship anyway). This is a considerably simpler solution than adding work to the Election Commission.
Edits
(1. I also note that the wording of the BoR includes the very unusual wording of "encourage" which is significantly broader.)
The Open Elections Act. Currently at vote, https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9199284/
The wording is as follows:
“Chapter 4 of the Legal Code will be amended to include Section 4.8: Private Campaign Messages as follows:
The Election Commission will publicly maintain a list of citizens who would prefer not to receive private campaign messages from or on behalf of candidates for elected office, and private campaign messages for or against reopening nominations for an elected office.
Citizens may ask their name be added to the list of citizens described in this section via posting in a designated forum thread in the Regional Assembly forum.
The Election Commission will post the list of citizens described in this section with each post announcing the opening of candidacy declarations.”
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, Act 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 and its territories."
Plea 1: The highlight “and shall be encouraged” is my highlight.
- This is largely based on a negative commerce clause style reading of the Bill of Rights: if the Bill of Rights requires the encouragement of free speech, the right to free speech cannot be discouraged or otherwise abridged without a compelling reason. (Edit: I also note that the wording of the BoR includes the very unusual wording of "encourage" which is significantly broader.)
- The Open Elections Act fails to offer a compelling reason against free speech, along the lines of prior rulings such as Ruling No. 66 where hate speech was involved.
- I argue that the words “shall be encouraged” means that the governmental authorities of the region cannot discourage free speech. Note that I am specifically referring to "governmental authorities" here. I argue that the proposed amendment to the Legal Code amounts to a form of discouragement via the publication of what amounts to a “do not contact” list.
- Further, the act is carried out by The Election Commission, which I would argue should be read as a governmental authority of the region for the purpose of clause 2 of the Bill of Rights, notwithstanding prior rulings, as it is a body whose composition is proposed by the Delegate.
3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?
Mainly R 66 establishes that the TNP Community Guidelines also apply to the forum. To quote the ruling from R 66, on the portion “On the Constitutionality of Suppressing Specific Forms of Speech”, "[t]he 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."
I also plead on the argument that the Court's prior ruling does not allow suppression of speech with regards to regional politics, and that argument is violated by the Open Elections Act.
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 standing as "[a]nyone may submit a request to the Court for a review of government policy or law” under Chapter 2/1of the Court procedures and I am currently a citizen of The North Pacific. I have a particular interest as having previously used direct messages to campaign for office, including the May 2024 General Election where I campaigned for Delegate. Also, I would invite the Court to take the opportunity affirm the argument that challenges under the Bill of Rights are open to everyone .
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.
I believe there is a compelling regional interest in that the Bill of Rights is an integral part of the region, and that the law is actually at vote, and voters would therefore benefit from knowing if the law itself is constitutional or otherwise. I am not requesting an immediate ruling, however, since the next election is not due until July.
6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?
As a personal recommendation, I would simply suggest that anyone who does not want to be contacted for DM purposes mark it as such on their forum accounts (such as on their signatures on their “about them” page (and this is relevant since DIscord is integrated with citizenship anyway). This is a considerably simpler solution than adding work to the Election Commission.
Edits
(1. I also note that the wording of the BoR includes the very unusual wording of "encourage" which is significantly broader.)
Last edited:
