Problematic interpretation of the Freedom of Expression

[Unibot]

The Chief Justice has just ruled that if someone is not removed from the forums or residence, or otherwise forced to not be able to express themselves, then the Freedom of Expression does not apply, regardless of whether a citizen is denied citizenship and disenfranchised for their beliefs.

 

This is, of course, incredibly problematic as an interpretation - it means our Freedom of Expression has been weakened to the point of .. well, there's not much point to it.

 

For example, it is completely possibly to write an Article of the Code of Laws, under this interpretation, that disenfranchises citizens if they criticize the government. So long as those people are not blocked from expressing themselves, "Freedom of Expression" does not apply. 

 

In a democracy, we need more of a substantive Freedom of Expression -- one that protects expression for citizens, not simply residents. If it is not a contradiction with The Charter to be able to disfranchise citizens that disagree with you, then The Charter is deeply flawed or has been deeply misinterpreted. Either way, I believe we need to rewrite parts of our Bill of Rights to be more clearly substantive. 

 

- Uni

[Hileville]

You know you can file a request for another opinion by a temporary Justice.  If that opinion is different a Full Court will be convened to come to a final conclusion.  Lets not start rewriting the Bill of Rights and Charter when the entire Judicial process has not been followed.

 
Section 4 - Legal Questions

1. Legal questions will always be handled by a partial court.
   
2. Those asking legal questions referring to the Charter may request an additional legal opinion, which will be given by the next rotating temporary associate justice. If the legal opinions substantially differ, then a full court will convene to issue a final opinion.
   

[Cormac]

The ruling doesn't even do what you say it's going to do, Unibot.

 

Your contention was that Article 9 contradicted the Charter because it violated freedom of expression; it doesn't. The Chief Justice was correct that the ability to reside in the region and post on the forum is not impeded by Article 9. Your assertion that this ruling could be used to enable a law removing the citizenship of someone who criticizes the government is wrong. Unlike Article 9, such a law would directly punish someone for expressing themselves by removing their citizenship and disenfranchising them -- which is a direct impediment to expression.

 

You're trying to argue that a ruling that expression has nothing to do with this means that freedom of expression can now be legally curtailed, and you're wrong. Just because freedom of expression doesn't apply here doesn't mean it wouldn't apply to a different law that actually deals with expression.

[Unibot]

The Chief Justice was correct that the ability to reside in the region and post on the forum is not impeded by Article 9. Your assertion that this ruling could be used to enable a law removing the citizenship of someone who criticizes the government is wrong. Unlike Article 9, such a law would directly punish someone for expressing themselves by removing their citizenship and disenfranchising them -- which is a direct impediment to expression.

Actually no, Article 9 can be a direct response to criticism of the government, hence what I was saying in my dissent.

 

Ultimately it is not important to remove dissenting voices from the region, it is important to remove their votes - that is far more important as far as power is concerned. 

[Cormac]

Actually no, Article 9 can be a direct response to criticism of the government, hence what I was saying in my dissent.

 

Ultimately it is not important to remove dissenting voices from the region, it is important to remove their votes - that is far more important as far as power is concerned. 

 

 

Article 9 can be used as a direct response to criticism of the government by a hostile region or organization, yes. It cannot be used to suppress expression by individual citizens of The South Pacific. The bill of rights isn't supposed to protect the expression of foreign regions and organizations, it's supposed to protect the expression of our individual citizens.

 

I would also add that it's exceedingly unlikely, given the threshold required for an Article 9 designation, that any region or organization would be declared hostile merely for criticizing The South Pacific.

 

You really don't have a leg to stand on here. No matter how much you might want it to be, your membership in a foreign organization isn't expression and isn't protected by the bill of rights -- and I for one have no interest in amending the bill of rights to give any foreign region or organization that kind of shield. The day TSP decides to make membership in a foreign region or organization a form of protected expression is the day it might as well just surrender its sovereignty and puts its Delegacy up for first to tart to the highest endos.

[Unibot]

1. It's the easiest way to suppress an individual - you link their ideas to some bogeyman organization they're apart of and ban them as apart of said "criminal group".

 

2. There is no need for Article 9 to apply only to foreign organizations - it can apply to political parties in TSP. 

 

3. Freedom of Association is generally an implicit extension of Freedom of Speech - for example, in the United States, the First Amendment secures your right to be apart of say "Greenpeace" (an international organization hosted in the foreign land of Amsterdam), despite constant political pressure from the U.S government (which would much rather label them "eco-terrorists" and criminalize them to suppress the environmental movement overall). 

[Cormac]

1. Except Article 9 doesn't allow for the suppression of individuals, it allows for the designation of entire regions or organizations as criminal. I don't think the Cabinet, CSS, or a huge supermajority of the Assembly are going to take that drastic step just to suppress one citizen or even a few citizens that might be considered annoying or even hostile as individuals. But maybe I have more faith in democratic institutions than you do.

 

2. Again, I can't even fathom these institutions actually abusing their power in this way. If they did there is absolutely no reason the Court couldn't rule that the application of Article 9 to a domestic organization contradicts the Charter. Nonetheless, this is actually the first somewhat valid point you've raised in regard to Article 9 in quite some time and I do think it should be amended to clarify that these must be foreign regions and organizations.

 

3. Yes, U.S. citizens can associate with Greenpeace. They cannot associate with al-Qaeda. Can we please not do the irrelevant RL parallels before I actually have to name a region or organization in NationStates that would be the equivalent of al-Qaeda?

[Belschaft]

1. It's the easiest way to suppress an individual - you link their ideas to some bogeyman organization they're apart of and ban them as apart of said "criminal group".

 

2. There is no need for Article 9 to apply only to foreign organizations - it can apply to political parties in TSP. 

 

3. Freedom of Association is generally an implicit extension of Freedom of Speech - for example, in the United States, the First Amendment secures your right to be apart of say "Greenpeace" (an international organization hosted in the foreign land of Amsterdam), despite constant political pressure from the U.S government (which would much rather label them "eco-terrorists" and criminalize them to suppress the environmental movement overall). 

Nonsense. In the USA freedom of association as it exists stems from the result of NAACP v. Alabama, which is a classic example of judicial activism and - regardless of the moral implications - legal nonsense. It is not the purpose of the court to legislate, and the fact that in the US they have been forced to do so such is due to a failing of the legislature. The US Ninth Amendment on non-enumerated rights should sufficiently, in the context of the First Amendment right to Freedom of Assembly, cover association and the fact that it didn't should have been solved in Congress.

 

Regardless, the nature of rights in the USA is irrelevant to the nature of rights in TSP. Article 2.1 of the Charter contains a 'reasonable restrictions' clause that explicitly limits the freedom of expression, so even were expression to equal association then Article 9 would still be legal so long as the illegality of a particular association constituted a reasonable restriction.

 

As you note, the possibility that Article 9 could apply to a domestic political party or pressure group exists and is an oversight... which is exactly why that loophole is being closed by an amended version of Article 9 that limits the purview of the law to foreign groups.

[Unibot]

As you note, the possibility that Article 9 could apply to a domestic political party or pressure group exists and is an oversight... which is exactly why that loophole is being closed by an amended version of Article 9 that limits the purview of the law to foreign groups.

It may be an "oversight" - but it also should be incredibly illegal under our bill of rights. The Chief Justice was in the wrong for finding it completely chill for the government and the assembly to deny citizenship in response to political parties in TSP -- that's not a substantive interpretation of what Freedom of Expression means. 

[Kris Kringle]

Unibot. If you are so displeased with the ruling of the Chief Justice then why on earth are you not appealing it? Right what it looks like you are just wanting to create endless debate without actually acting on your concerns.

[Punk D]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">As you note, the possibility that Article 9 could apply to a domestic political party or pressure group exists and is an oversight... which is exactly why that loophole is being closed by an amended version of Article 9 that limits the purview of the law to foreign groups.

It may be an "oversight" - but it also should be incredibly illegal under our bill of rights. The Chief Justice was in the wrong for finding it completely chill for the government and the assembly to deny citizenship in response to political parties in TSP -- that's not a substantive interpretation of what Freedom of Expression means. 

 


</blockquote>
 

I was trying to see the proposal in the original post of this thread. It appears the change requested is a rewrite of the Bill of Rights because of the ruling by the chief justice. I do not believe that the threat to Freedom of Expression exists as Unibot has argued.

 

Is it true that a political party of The South Pacific could be classified as a 'Criminal Group' as defined by the present law? Yes.

 

Is it true that you could win the lottery if you play it? Yes.

 

However, as an Assembly we should look at what is also reasonably possible as well. I highly doubt that 60 percent of this Assembly would ever vote to make a TSP political organization "hostile". Even back in the old TSP days when myself, Geo, and a few others formed "The Coalition for Open Government" because we desired a more free and open TSP, I doubt 60 percent of the ruling class would have labeled the group "hostile". 

 

As I said, the current wording makes it possible for this to happen but I think we should ask if it is plausible that it would actually happen within the Assembly. I think not. And rather than fight ghostly challenges to our freedoms, I think we can find other worthwhile pursuits.

[Unibot]

I think the entire purpose of Article 9 is to fight "ghostly challenges" to our freedoms. 

[tsunamy]

I think the entire purpose of Article 9 is to fight "ghostly challenges" to our freedoms. 

 

Can you prove that? Or are you just trying to antagonize people?

 

I think the discussion on the targets for Article 9 were quite clear in the previous debate. I see no need for us to relive them in a new thread.

[Rebel-topia]

This has very little to do with the Assembly, Unibot. If you're trying to garner support for a repeal, then state it so. Otherwise, please take your continued concerns to the courts.

[Unibot]

This has very little to do with the Assembly, Unibot. If you're trying to garner support for a repeal, then state it so. Otherwise, please take your continued concerns to the courts.

 

No, a repeal of Article 9 would not fix the problematic interpretation of Article 2 of the Charter. That requires Assembly action.

[Belschaft]

Except it's a problematic interpretation you've reached, not the chief justice. You've fundamentally misunderstood his ruling.

[Farengeto]

I still fail to see how I "watered down" Freedom of Expression. Instead of throwing around anecdotes and absurd extremes, let's look at exact wording.


Article 2.2

The freedom to voice their opinions on all matter of their interest, including the peaceful criticism of the Coalition and its government, on both the Forum and the Regional Message Board, subject to reasonable restrictions established by the Assembly that do not violate the spirit of the Charter.

Now let's look at exactly what I said:

The Court finds no contradiction with Article 2.2 of the Charter. Article 9 of the Code of Laws has no effect on the Freedom of Expression granted in Article 2.2 of the Charter. While Article 9 revokes citizenship on those deemed "hostile" by the assembly, Article 9 does not limit the affected individual's ability to post on The South Pacific forums, nor their freedom to reside in the region.

All I said was that Article 9 does not remove freedom of expression, taking a literal interpretation of 2.2 to the word to prove it. And regardless, it is subject to "reasonable restrictions" and I feel a majority vote of the assembly more than satisfies that part. I also do not feel it violates the spirit of the Charter, whose purpose is stated as:

to preserve and protect the freedom, prosperity, security, and well being of our region as a whole and its individual states.

Now, formalities aside, go ahead and twist my words amd quote mine me. Consider yourself lucky I keep my language clean. Before this FoE issue I was probably one of the few people here with any respect for you. But now I can clearly see what all of this was about. It was never about a TSP "Oligarchy", it was always about their stance on UDL. For a time you'd even started getting through to me, and maybe that's why we had good relations for a while. But everything you've done is disruptive manipulation to pull TSP under the grasp of the UDL. Maybe some of the things you've said had some truth to it, but it was always loaded with aggression and propaganda. And now that you're not getting your way with me you're going to try and take me down. Good luck, because I'm not falling for it anymore. Call me a pawn of the "Old Guard", I don't care.

[Lord Ravenclaw]

[Arbiter08]

Well said Farengeto, well said.

[Sandaoguo]

I have to disagree with your very simplistic approach, Farengeto. Freedom of expression is not simply the ability to post on the forums.  I think any analysis that uses a procedural assumption, rather than addressing the substantive issue, is lackluster. I also think you were wrong that the Criminal Organizations and Organizations act doesn't violate the spirit of the Charter, though it's hard (if not impossible) to adjudicate "spirit." Your decision focused on the emotions of (maybe) the majority, rather than taking into account the individual rights the Charter brings up. You ignored the "individual states" part of the purpose of the Charter.

 

But worse, I think you made a poor decision by assuming that anything passed by a majority of the Assembly is a reasonable restriction to the freedom of expression. That precedent guts the power of the Court completely, by placing the determination of what is reasonable solely in the hands of a majority, no matter how slim, of the Assembly.

 

I think Unibot brought everything upon himself, and should have been banned from the forums under our moderation policies. However, I can't help but wonder if you judged the case based upon the person bringing it, or upon the merits. I personally found the analysis to be very poor, with limited to no real explanations at all for why and how a certain opinion was reached. That's why I urged an appeal, so the Court would be forced to actually explain their position. This isn't about Unibot. It's about our Charter and whether or not we respect the individual rights of people to express themselves and associate themselves with people who don't actually pose any real security threat to our region.

[Hileville]

Arguing this here is premature.  Appeal the decision to a temporary justice before trying to change the Charter.

[tsunamy]

Frankly, I don't think this Monday-morning-quarterbacking Farengeto is fair.

 

But, I also don't understand these arguments. Article 9 isn't saying that only a majority of the Assembly can do it but. But it must be the majority of the Cabinet or CSS and then a majority of the Assembly. Really that's two branches of the government -- or the security force and the Assembly -- in agreement.

 

Now, if we all think that our elected officials and/or the Assembly are that unreliable, by all means. But that's the position you're taking with the argument.