|
Post by Joel Wood on Mar 3, 2006 15:36:08 GMT -6
WHEREAS, Talossa is a a society and it can be said that decency and respectful communication is a glue that holds a society together and, WHEREAS, in Talossa there is a current standard, or code of how citizens are supposed to treat one another and this measure is now called Wittiquette and, WHEREAS, there are currently no laws in the Kingdom that make Wittiquette enforceable should serious infractions occur and, WHEREAS, there have been in the past, and probably will be in years to come, breaches of this code and, WHEREAS, there are currently no laws that cover the suspension of Wittenberg accounts should multiple, serious infractions occur and, WHEREAS, the use of Wittenberg is a privilege and not a right and, WHEREAS, it is essential that Talossans everywhere separate themselves from the common blog that pollute many parts of the internet by holding themselves to higher standard, I do hereby propose that certain aspects of Wittiquette be examined with the intent to make our standards enforceable. I am imagining a discussion where we look at Wittiquette and decide which parts, if not all, of our code of conduct be made actionable if repeated breaches occur. (Right now, if left the way it is and all is included it would be an actionable breach of etiquette to make Lord Metáiriâ angry, AS WELL AS IT SHOULD BE! ) Maybe a three strike system of increasing severity where the first breach is a warning, the second a temporary suspension of Wittenberg privileges and the third a more permanent suspension of six months or a year? This proposal would not have any impact on an offender's citizenship or ability to vote and is also not intended to have retroactive or ex post facto effect. Let me know what you think. I think we need to have transparent and legal alternatives to deal with rude, abusive and racist behavior. In the good old days if a citizen breached the standard egregiously he or she was lucky if they were just imprisoned for life. More often than not the nobleman or noblewoman had the right to cut them down, or have them cut down on the spot. Recent events are not even really the issue here, they only serve, as far as this proposal is concerned, to set a precedent for possible, future violations. I feel strongly that if it can happen now, it or something like it can happen again.
|
|
|
Post by Geoff Holdorf on Mar 3, 2006 16:37:52 GMT -6
For what its worth, I hereby second this petition, and hope others do too. I believe this will be critical to the future of Talossa, in light of recent events and comments. I would also like to be a part of the soloution. If any help is needed, just pm me or e mail me and ask. thank You.
Geoff
|
|
|
Post by Joel Wood on Mar 3, 2006 19:04:19 GMT -6
I have thought about this some more and would like to add a couple points. Assuming, this proposal goes anywhere I think definitions will need to be made as to what exactly would constitute a strike and who exactly would determine this.
This is my first venture into the realm of the Hopper and "whereases." I tread lightly here while broaching a serious subject. I appreciate any feedback or advice that can be offered to me from the "old hands" (no reference to age implied) and welcome any suggestions for inclusions or exclusions that can be made.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Mar 3, 2006 20:14:19 GMT -6
I'm not sure how to approach this. I kind of think the present situation is ideal - Wittenberg is basically a private entity, and its administrators have the ability to institute any rules they want, and restrict access to those who are willing to abide by those rules. Hence we have Wittiquette, and Sir John's ability as an administrator to suspend the account of someone who breaches Wittiquette.
Now, attempting to *legislate* Wittiquette could open up a whole can of worms. Many of the Wittiquette rules would be a violation of the OrgLaw's Second Covenant if they were mandated by the state. So long as Witt and its rules are private matters, they are not really subject to Organic scrutiny, but once you institute criminal penalties you are probably violating someone's legal rights as a citizen if you suspend their Witt privileges for anything other than actual breach of peace, libel, or obscenity. And as distasteful as many of the words attributed to S:reu Martuc are, I'm not sure they rise to that level.
The bottom line is, bringing the *law* in here could make it harder, not easier, to enforce civility on Wittenberg. Anyways, I'm not a big fan of "speech codes" or political correctness when enforced by the state.
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Mar 4, 2006 0:41:30 GMT -6
Mr. Justice Siervicül makes a good point — if Wittenberg is "privately held", the Admins can react more flexibly and appropriately to difficult situations (like today's) than if it's publicly owned (as it were). On the other hand, Wittenberg has become so vital to the everyday life of Talossa, that it seems there ought to be some kind of public oversight. So here's my proposal.
How about we make Wittenberg a private corporation, Royally chartered, with a Board of Directors — the King, the Justices of the Cort, the PM, the SecState, and three others (popularly elected) — who can set up rules, etc. The existence of the Corporation can be recognized in law, and Directors elected by law; but the day-to-day running of things wouldn’t be subject to legal hassles, delays, etc. Any question could be settled pretty easily by an email poll of the Directors, and daily operations could be handed over to one or two people, subject to the Board’s oversight.
— John Woolley, UrN
|
|
|
Post by Joel Wood on Mar 4, 2006 5:39:43 GMT -6
Mr. Justice Siervicül, I would like to politely and respectfully disagree with you on this matter. I do not think the current situation is ideal at all. It seems the entire "thing" had to develop into an extreme before we were willing to make a move. I understand, but do not know from experience, that times have been rough before in the Kingdom, but have never been like this exactly. Since this is a first of sorts (correct me if I am wrong) many citizens were ambivalent about acting hastily or rashly because there wasn't a legal precedent. I also think that by nature most of us wanted to give a citizen the benefit of the doubt. All of the signs and indicators were there though as far as S:reu Martuc is concerned. It became increasingly obvious that things were not going to get better and the real question was, how bad is it going to get and how long will it take? If we as a Kingdom had tools at our disposal before all of this we very well could have curbed this at the obscenities against Lord Hooligan and the former Governor of Pengopats and not had to deal with the flippant, callous and racist remarks as well. You said you do not think we were quite at the stage of obscenity, breach of peace and libel. I do not know what standard all three of these are formally measured but prolific profanity and racist and bigoted statements strike me as obscene. Getting me up in arms is no difficult feat but when the majority of the Kingdom is in arms over one issue or the other and these issues all stem from a single inflammatory source, this is a breach of our peace. Finally, I understood the standard for libel to be reckless disregard for the facts as it relates to what one person says (in any medium) about another in public forum. If the "sayer" has a reasonable expectation of privacy when the statements are made the evidence is not admissible. Ups attacked more than one citizen on more than one occasion and was shown to clearly have that reckless disregard for the facts as it related to who he was speaking about. I understand some may feel that pushing legislation as a knee jerk reaction to a seemingly isolated incident is rash. Some may may also feel that if the vetting process for citizenship were different we may have been able to nip this in the bud so to speak. To the first I ask, is it possible that something like this could ever happen again? Is it possible that someone could go completely overboard in tone and speech and present a very serious issue not just for the parties involved but also for the Kingdom as a whole? If the answer is yes I say let's do something. I like S:reu John's idea because it addresses the "what if" in my mind. I hope we don't have to deal with anything like this again and it is entirely possible that we never will. But what if we do? Wouldn't it be nice to have a standard that is transparent and actionable for everyone? I think the consequences should be obvious, if I do this (insert crazy thing here) I can expect that (insert rational, reasonable consequence here) to happen. To the second, I ask will we ever really know who a person is until we umm... you know get to know them? Finding an equilibrium between quantity and quality is everyone's ideal but you never really know what a person is about until you have spent some time with them. There is no way in the world that Ups would have made the same statements from the last couple weeks on his application or in his "interview process." Another citizen said it best, interview behavior is usually the best behavior and if this is the best we have to expect then we are in for it. This statement was very prophetic. ( I am paraphrasing and apologize to the original speaker for not giving credit but I want to knock this out before daybreak. ) The real point isn't about what has happened recently. I too am a fan of the First Amendment. I too am leery when standards of conduct are mandated by the state. But as it relates to us, how much free speech is too much free speech? Where does someone's right to disagree, speak their mind etc... override your right as a citizen, subject and in some cases nobleman/ noblewoman of this Kingdom, to be treated with respect. I feel we have a right to log on and not be bombarded with profanity and filth. I feel that you have a right as a citizen of gentle birth not to be attacked on a mean and degrading level. We are going to fight and yes, we are going to disagree and I think that is great but I also think that there is a way to whip up on each other and have opposing viewpoints without resorting to sexual innuendo, obscenity, profanity and lies. Sir, I look forward to your response. I may disagree with some things now but I respect your judgment and accept that there may be many areas where my logic is flawed. Where this is the case please do not hesitate to correct me or set me straight as it will only help me comprehend all of this better in the future. Respectfully, Joel M. Wood
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Walkland on Mar 4, 2006 7:34:37 GMT -6
Or, the strikes could go as follows:
1st warning - No action taken, apart from the breach being noted. 2nd warning - see above Exile from Wittenburg - For a period of time the offender is not allowed to engage in Wittenburg/Kingdom activities.
Then, if this happens again, a Lifetime ban from Wittenburg.
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Mar 4, 2006 7:41:43 GMT -6
Or the other way to handle it would be simply to regard Wittenberg as a public service being provided by certain citizens, who can do what they want with it. As long as the people administering Witt are upright trustworthy clean brave and reverent, everything would be OK.
I've been reluctant to use the power of Witt admin, since I just kind of slopped into it without any real mandate. But maybe that's what we want — someone who'll do a good job, and not abuse the power, but who's not subject to governmental (or even corporate) oversight.
Just groping for ideas here.
— John Woolley, UrN
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Walkland on Mar 4, 2006 7:48:56 GMT -6
Or, the Administration of Wittenburg could be a Governmental Job (eg. Minister for Wittenburg?), who's position is to be appointed by the PM or vote in the Ziu.
-- Joseph Walkland MC
|
|
Lord Q
Citizen since 5-21-1998; Baron since 2-23-2006
The beatings will continue until morale improves
Posts: 1,263
|
Post by Lord Q on Mar 4, 2006 11:17:18 GMT -6
This isn't the first time "Wittiquette" in some form has been tested. Before the revolution, Andy and Chris got into some (seemingly) very heated exchanges (which turned out to be a joke between them; thanks guys ). At the time, I was a proponent of legislating Witt, but I can clearly see now that keeping Witt private makes things easier. Not being able to post on Witt is not censorship. Witt is not the only way of communicating with other Talossans. It is the easiest, but lack of capability to do so does not inhibit one's right to be heard and to speak freely.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Mar 4, 2006 11:30:33 GMT -6
Mr. Justice Siervicül, I would like to politely and respectfully disagree with you on this matter. S:reu Wood, It's a little strange for me to play the role of the civil libertarian in a debate, but I'll give it a go. My views may be tainted by excessive reliance on US First Amendment principles, but that's what I'm most familiar with. Talossa itself does not have a well-developed body of law interpreting the covenants of rights and freedoms, so I welcome this discussion. First, I didn't see Martuc say anything that could be considered legally obscene. Obscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest, and without redeeming social value. Obscenity may cover hard-core pornography, but would probably not reach mere name-calling (there are scads of cases dealing with use of the "F word" for prurient purposes versus using it as a curse word), and could never be used to get at the ideas behind the expression ("F*** the draft," for example, is free speech). Regarding a breach of peace, the standard is typically that the speech needs to be the type of words that are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction - "fighting words." A statement that might constitute "fighting words" if said face to face would not necessary constitute fighting words if posted on the internet. The fact that the speaker's audience opposes the speaker's viewpoint is usually not relevant. You say that a majority of Talossa is "up in arms" over what Martuc said. If by that you mean a great majority of Talossa strongly opposes what Martuc said, you're absolutely right. But that's not a sufficient basis for criminalizing his speech. Student activist groups at various colleges and universities have sometimes tried to block speakers from coming to campus by arguing, implicitly or explicitly, that the speaker's remarks will constitute a breach of peace because THEY will riot if the speaker is allowed to express himself. A hostile audience can't turn viewpoint expression into a breach of peace. In the famous Skokie case, the Supreme Court held that it was protected free expression for a group of neo-Nazis to march through a predominantly Jewish neighborhood. You can't outlaw racist views. If an organic guarantee of freedom of speech doesn't apply to controversial, unpopular, or offensive positions, it's useless, because there's no danger of the government trying to ban opinions that everyone agrees with. This situation puts me in mind of something I witnessed about 4 years ago. Although I fortunately have never personally experienced such treatment, my brothers were cursed at and called "baby-killers" by a passer-by on the street because they dared to attend my law school graduation in their Class A's. Do I disagree with the sentiments that man expressed? Vehemently! Do I think he should have been put in jail for expressing them? Certainly not. I'm concerned with the direction we're headed because of Talossa's history with things like the "German Amendment" proposed several months ago by King Robert I. Look that up, as well as the thread titled "Lessons from Germany." If you understand the likely consequences that proposal would have had (ask Sir Fritz), you will understand how dangerous laws criminalizing offensive or discriminatory speech could have been. When people start talking about balancing a right to free speech against a right to not be offended, I get very nervous. Such talk has had a chilling effect on political debate at many a university. Look at what's happening in Europe now with, for example, a certain collection of Danish political cartoons. As far as libel is concerned, the statement has to be actually false, made with knowledge of the falsity or reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity, and must result in damages. With respect to public figures, a statement has to be made with actual malice. Wisconsin does have a criminal defamation statute, which is incorporated into Talossan law as part of our Criminal Code. That may be something for the Attorney General to consider, but I haven't seriously considered how strong of a criminal defamation case could be put together here. I personally think libel is a matter best left to private causes of action. I said the current situation may be ideal because administrators of a private forum have more freedom than administrators of a public forum in dealing with troublemakers. Some of the Wittiquette rules could certainly not be enforced if we made Witt a no-kidding public forum. Maybe some of the rules *could* be enforced, and this discussion can be valuable, perhaps, in trying to work out how far we could go. But we would certainly lose something in our ability to control just plain rude and annoying behavior. Very respectfully, C.M. Siervicül
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Mar 4, 2006 12:04:04 GMT -6
Dang, it can be frustrating arguing with someone who knows what he's talking about. Justice Siervicül is exactly right about the dangers of criminalizing "bad speech", and one of the first things the CLP did after being elected last October was to repeal some of the Talossan laws that tried to do just that. Of course, the dangers would be greater if Talossa actually had the ability to fine, incarcerate, or behead offenders. I'm perfectly willing to administer Witt as a private citizen providing a service to the nation. And since we also repealed the old Ben-law against setting up "side" boards, any Talossans who don't like the way Witt's administered are perfectly free to set up other ways to communicate. (In fact, this is already being done. I know of at least two Yahoo groups of Talossans, and lots and lots of semi-private and private email flies around all the time.) So for clarity's sake, how about if someone volunteers to charge me with a crime for my suspending a citizen's Witt account, and we'll let the Cort decide whether it was legal for me to do it? Lord Hooligan? Anyone? I'd do it myself, but I'm sure that would be considered a bit irregular. — John Woolley, UrN
|
|
|
Post by Joel Wood on Mar 4, 2006 14:29:30 GMT -6
Wow! This was excellent, it certainly is tough to debate with someone who knows the subject matter so well. I see some of the finer distinctions now and am more informed for it. Sincerely, thank you. If keeping it private makes things easier then I absolutely support this. If making Witt public clutters the system and actually makes the entire process more difficult then I am wholeheartedly against that. My concern is for the result or the end state and if there is an easier way to get there, or if in this case, we are already there I am again all for it. My understanding was that there needed to be a balance struck between the private executors of Witt and a public legal process. My concepts were inferred and not based off of any substance and I am now aware that this understanding was wrong and that the proposal is in fact unnecessary. Based off of what has been said here and the possible threats that could arise to our liberties if something like what I proposed was enacted, I do hereby withdraw the position. I like things the way they are and can truly rest well knowing that the matter is already well in hand. Thanks to everyone involved in the discussion, I have learned a great deal and now have a few paths to pursue for research. Sincerely, Joel Wood (Legal Neophyte at Large )
|
|
Danihel Laurieir
Citizen since 7-1981; Count since 2-23-2006
Videbimus Omnes
Posts: 400
|
Post by Danihel Laurieir on Mar 5, 2006 22:49:44 GMT -6
If we were debating about the limits of free speech in the United States, there's no doubt I'd be standing side-by-side with my fellow justice. The Kingdom of Talossa, however, is a different sort of nation—it's a smaller, more intimate and more fragile community. And the scope of the community is not the only difference: almost all Talossans have had to join Talossa, that is, we Talossans have to permit others to join our "club." I think—without being entirely persuaded yet—that these differences may give us not just license, but a responsibility to be more active in enforcing at least a minimal standard of conduct.
Is it possible for us to make a distinction between the content of a belief and the manner of its saying? Even if it were legal to do so under Talossan law, I would not want to ban the expression of any ideas. But I might be willing to ban certain ways of expressing ideas. Writing a code of conduct that captures this distinction would be tricky, and would inevitably depend on subjectivity. Sir John's Wittiquette is a very promising attempt, however. The sticking points for many of us are that Talossa's Covenant of Freedom's and Rights is arguably very robustly against any laws abridging most forms of expression and that any practical speech code would depend heavily on subjective interpretation.
In the context of Talossa, I am willing to bite the bullet and at least explore the need to change our Covenant of Rights and Freedoms to allow the Kingdom to adopt and enforce a speech code. (Well, that's not really biting the bullet…sniffing the bullet, maybe?) Let me be clear: what I'd be willing to contemplate would be a scheme in which the Kingdom would vigorously defend any Talossan's right to talk about any idea in any public Talossan forum as long as that person did so a respectful and intelligent manner. If, however, a Talossan choose to use crude language, insult people, write really bad a whole bunch of the time, and annoy a bunch of us—then, through some process, we could kick him off the public forums.
But wait—isn't this the way Talossa works right now? It is if one accepts the notion that a Talossan can be kicked off of Wittenberg—Talossa's agora—and not consider that a form of censorship or abridgement of freedom of expression. Wittenberg is a privately run entity, and that fact may be very convenient—if we can convince ourselves that Wittenberg is really just one of the many, many forums that Talossans can express themselves in. I could be convinced of this, though it does seem a stretch to me (as I think it does to some others who have posted in this thread). Plus I like the idea of a central meeting place for Talossans. It encourages unity, but also raises the question of regulating public conduct.
My mind is not settled on any of these issues yet, except part of me keeps saying: "This is Talossa—not the United States. We're a fairly small club. It's fun, until an aggressive, witless, chronic jerk makes me embarrassed to be associated with Talossa. Why can't we just honestly give ourselves the power to boot jerks?"
(Arguably, this post of mine is badly written, crude and insults people. But I don't think it serves as an example of what I'd like to keep out of Talossa or off of Wittenberg. And, if I may be so bold, many fellow Talossans would feel the same. But what's the difference? How can we tell? How worried by subjectivity should we be?)
|
|
Nikϋ
Citizen since 1-16-2006
Posts: 138
|
Post by Nikϋ on Mar 6, 2006 7:39:36 GMT -6
There are three points I would like to raise.
Firstly, on freedom of speech. I consider myself a libertarian and I have absolutely no problem with obscenity and people using expletives, other than in grounds of taste. However: Racist remarks and remarks glorifying murder are not something I am personally willing to tolerate. If we look at the laws of foreign countries, inciting racial hatred, inciting religious hatred and breach of the peace are frequently illegal and carry significant prison sentences. I mention the UK case because that is what I am most familiar with - people have been prosecuted, often successfully, for uttering such remarks. Unfortunately I am no expert of the legal framework in regards to this matter in the US, but I believe a website, column or TV-show carrying abusive comments against African Americans for example or glorifying the 9/11 attacks would not be tolerated. As Sir John mentions, in Talossa we have limited ability to 'punish' someone. We can, however, have their citizenship revoked and that is what I believe should be done in such cases - through an instant temporary suspension and then a final decision taken after the proper legal procedures have taken place.
Secondly, with regards to Wittenberg, I believe the current arrangements work pretty well. I also believe that there is no guarantee they will continue to do so. Sir John has proven himself to be a worthy Talossan and effective administrator, however is is perfectly possible that this will not be the case with all administrators to follow him, if and when that happens. Even more importantly, other Talossans may disagree with his handling of a given matter (to avoid misunderstandings, I do not refer to his handling of the matter that have led to us having this conversation). As a result, I believe that there should be a certain legal framework to put limits on the Administrator's behaviour and outlining actions that he/she is obliged to take in certain circumstances. The Witt probably works more effectively in private hands, as is currently the case, but I believe it is too important for Talossan life to be left totally unregulated.
Finally, on the handling of this specific case. I am satisfied, as a private citizen, that action was swift and that the account was suspended. I also have - almost - blind faith on Sir John and our government to do what's right in each circumstance. I do believe, however, that the whole procedure was not as transparent as it should have been, and I still don't know what the current status of Martuc is - temporary suspension? permanent suspension? How is his status as a Talossan affected? I believe in cases like that the citizens of Talossa need clear reporting by their government and the Witt administrator as to what actions are being taken.
Please do not take the above as a criticism against any Talossan individuals or institutions. I have the utmost respect for all Talossans toiling on a daily basis to make this country the great country that it is and I would not want the above comments to be taken for something that they are not.
Nikos
|
|