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 6, 2006 12:14:58 GMT -6
I agree with Nikos that transparency in these things is important. Regarding Ups Martüc's current status:
1. Nothing has changed in his citizenship status. The only way he could lose his citizenship would be to renounce it, or to be convicted of a crime and be punished by loss of citizenship. As far as I know (but I wouldn't necessarily know), nobody has charged him with a crime.
2. I disabled his Wittenberg account, at first for 2 days. But then when a rash of astonishingly nasty emails began, when he began a campaign to display personal abuse and obscenities on Wittenberg, when he began trying every few seconds to log onto my Wittenberg account, I banned him entirely, permanently. (I say permanently, but there's no reason the decision couldn't be reversed; except that the guy is total poison, and no decent person is likely to provide him any opportunity to vent his abuse and racism in public.)
3. Legal remedies are being pursued, not by Talossa, but by me as a private individual. He is breaking laws, it's just a matter of focussing the authorities on him.
Right now, I've had to leave Wittenberg in a state where it's impossible to register a new account. This will impede the running of the boards, but it was necessary in order to prevent Ups from using our board to broadcast his ugliness to the world.
— John Woolley, UrN
|
|
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 6, 2006 12:28:14 GMT -6
Replying to Nikos's other point, with which I also agree, that the current situation, while it may work well for now, depends (possibly too much) on the benevolent wisdom of the Witt admin.
This was why I suggested a Royally chartered corporation to oversee Witt. The corporation would be non-governmental (a QANGO in British terms), but would be directed by a Board whose membership would be broadly taken from the Kingdom. I suggested — and I still think this would be good — a nine-member Board: 1) The King (or Regent), 2-4) The Justices of the Uppermost Cort, 5) The Prime Minister, 6) The Secretary of State, 7-9) Popularly elected positions. My suggestion would be to have the elected Board members serve 2-year terms, with one of them being elected every 8 months.
I would expect the Board to let one or two people act as day-to-day administrators, but to be available to make controversial decisions. And all the law would have to say, besides creating the Corporation and directing the Chancery to arrange elections, would be something like: "The administrators of Wittenberg will comply with all decisions of the Board."
— John Woolley, UrN
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Walkland on Mar 6, 2006 13:13:52 GMT -6
I think Sir Woolley's point is valid (and good), but I think the day-to-day admin should be the publicly elected officials, with all large disputes taken by the D2D Admin, and then the offenses and the like voted on by the panel, allowing the (alleged) offenders and the prosecutes have their say.
Making it similar to the regular police and magistrate's courts.
|
|
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 7, 2006 19:20:52 GMT -6
First of all, I would like to say to Count Laurier and S:reu Spyropoulos that their point about Talossa not being the United States is well taken. The Covenants of Rights and Freedoms are not written the same as the U.S. Bill of Rights, and it may well be that the scope of their protections are somewhat different. I'll refrain from further speculation on the exact extent of the Second Covenant, given the possibility that the issue may shortly be coming before the Cort. I do want to make a couple of points about the U.S. conception of freedom of speech, though: 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. I'm aware of some of the laws you refer to - laws against glorifying terrorism, prohibiting Nazi propaganda, prohibiting Holocaust denial, etc. For example, a man in Germany was recently sentenced to a (suspended) one year prison sentence for marketing toilet paper with the word "Koran" printed on it. I think that few if any of those laws would pass muster under the U.S. Constitution. I'll offer two reasons such laws are a bad idea - one based on principle and one based on pragmatics. First, governments ought not to be in the business of declaring which ideas or opinions may or may not be expressed. Freedom of conscience demands that each individual be free to peacefully express his opinions and ideas about any issue, without fear of retaliation for being part of an unpopular ideological minority. Free societies operate on the principle that truth is better supported by reason than by force. Second, in practical terms, such restrictions on speech are prone to abuse and make for bad precedent. There's no clear way to limit the effects to statements that everyone agrees are "unacceptable." It's dangerous to criminalize making racist remarks when charges of racism are so frequently levelled these days in the course of political debate. The result is creating a tool that can be used by whoever is in power to silence political opponents. For example, right wingers take power and prosecute anyone who advocates affirmative action because affirmative action is "reverse discrimination" and therefore "racist." Then left wingers take power and prosecute anyone who speaks out in favor of the U.S. "war on terror" because it's "racist" against Arabs. The left accuses the right of racism for supporting Israel against the Palestinians, and the right accuses the left of racism for supporting Palestine against the Israelis, the atheists accuse the "religious right" of religious bigotry for believing that everyone but them is going to hell, the "religious right" accuses the atheists of religious bigotry for calling *them* religious bigots, and either open discussion of controversial issues is squelched or everyone is trying to kick everyone else out of the country for expressing an opposing viewpoint. In short, I think that a speech code that criminalizes ideas determined to be offensive by the government is a Bad Idea, and not necessarily likely to improve the general tone of debate. For a good discussion on why content-based restrictions on political speech are impermissible under the U.S. First Amendment, see R.A.V. v. City of St Paul R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul ( www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-7675.ZO.html). This was why I suggested a Royally chartered corporation to oversee Witt. The corporation would be non-governmental (a QANGO in British terms), but would be directed by a Board whose membership would be broadly taken from the Kingdom. I suggested — and I still think this would be good — a nine-member Board: 1) The King (or Regent), 2-4) The Justices of the Uppermost Cort, 5) The Prime Minister, 6) The Secretary of State, 7-9) Popularly elected positions. My suggestion would be to have the elected Board members serve 2-year terms, with one of them being elected every 8 months. I'm about to get into some more legal geek stuff, for which I beg the gentle reader's pardon. The question here is whether calling something a non-governmental corporation makes it so. Can an entity controlled by a collection of government officials and members elected by the public at large really be considered private? Tellingly, the preferred term for QANGOs/QUANGOs in British usage is now "Non-Departmental Public Bodies" (NDPBs). In U.S. law, when the federal government creates federally chartered corporations, courts will look past the label applied by the government to determine whether a corporation is truly a private entity or whether it is in actuality a public body acting as a de facto arm of the government. If a nominally private corporation is in fact owned and controlled in a policy-making sense by the federal government, it will be subject to constitutional restrictions just as if it were a regular government agency. For example, Amtrak - a private, for-profit corporation - is treated as a government body when it comes to enforcing individual constitutional rights. In this case, 2/3 of the members of the board would be public officials, and the remaining one third would be elected by the general public, which is typical of governmental positions, not private entities. I wouldn't say that *any* degree of public involvement of the affairs of a private corporation turns it into a state actor. Perhaps Witt could be controlled by a board with a *minority* of ex-officio members from the government, and the remainder elected by the registered users of Wittenberg rather than the electorate of the Kingdom. Of course, in the end any arrangement we come up with has to be acceptable to Pete, or else we have to ditch this incarnation of Witt and start afresh.
|
|
|
Post by Joel Wood on Mar 7, 2006 21:34:47 GMT -6
My original intent was not to regulate what someone says as much as how they say it. I know this has been mentioned in a number of posts here and that it is certainly on the table now, but if we can zero or focus on this particular distinction it may simplify the entire thing. Avoiding the issue of what someone says while providing sensible guidelines for how it is said can't be that difficult here.
While I have read (and re-read) everything Justice Servicul has posted explaining the issues and pitfalls and believe they are pertinent and certainly worth noting, a single thought keeps coming to my mind. "Why is it so hard to do this?" Someone can still say anything they want, by this I mean with just a little flexibility and linguistic creativity even the most profane, mindless subjects could be alluded to if they were presented in an appropriate manner. Why can't we hold ourselves to a higher standard? I love the United States as much as any patriot but do not feel that all of our laws serve the purpose they were intended for. My point is, just because something is legal does not make it right. We can find a balance between what we, collectively, think is right without infringing on anyone's ability to express their ideas and opinions.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene Oh on Mar 8, 2006 12:09:40 GMT -6
A thought: Banning someone from Wittenberg could constitute censorship in that the person's viewpoint is being eradicated from the mass media. Other sorts of communication like mass emails might achieve the same effect, but technically they are an agglomeration of many private correspondences and are hence not the same.
Rather than banning people from Wittenberg I propose, as I did in a Wittenberg thread, that libel suits be automatically brought against groundless offenders by the state on behalf of either private citizens or groups of them, e.g. races, with the prerogative of the victim to drop the suit at any time preserved. I believe public figures ought to do it themselves if they want a suit, and I'm quite sure there's a justification for this somewhere, but I can't remember where.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Walkland on Mar 8, 2006 12:11:33 GMT -6
Wittenburg is a privelege, and a certain member has abused it.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene Oh on Mar 8, 2006 12:20:01 GMT -6
I beg to differ on technical grounds (correct me if I've overlooked anything):
1. The Organic Law guarantees freedom of expression, which includes Wittenberg as an online agora or newspaper/editorial collection because in praxis it so serves the entire Talossan community; 2. Wittenberg is not codified as an exclusive club of sorts.
Am I right?
|
|
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 8, 2006 12:39:15 GMT -6
Banning someone from Wittenberg isn't censorship. Wittenberg is a private entity that a lot of folks frequent. Wittenberg isn't Talossa.
There's nothing to say that someone can't set up another board.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Walkland on Mar 8, 2006 12:43:02 GMT -6
"Fourth Covenant. No discrimination, affirmative action schemes, or preferential treatment shall exist within the Kingdom of Talossa on the grounds of race, colour, class, nobility, , Sexual preference, age, religion, beliefs, language, or any other physical or societal parameters of any kind whatsoever, except as provided for elsewhere in this Organic Law." There was a slight use of racism against Jews. talossa.proboards32.com/index.cgi?board=chatroom&action=display&thread=1141408319&page=1#1141408319
|
|
Sir Samuhel Tecladeir
Citizen since 8-22-2005; Knight since 10-23-2006
If you don't rock the boat, no one will know it's sinking.
Posts: 436
|
Post by Sir Samuhel Tecladeir on Mar 8, 2006 13:49:53 GMT -6
We are discussing legislation for what one person did. There are 80-some members. We are letting 2% of the population dictate policy for the public at large. If you only count active members, the number gets lower.
The privilege of an account on Wittenberg is subject to the administrator of Wittenberg as a representative of the public. The individual spoken of violated expected behaviors for this board. Therefore, at the request of many members of the public, the administrator inactivated his account. Therefore, what the administrator did was in what the public's requested.
It may be a question for the courts, but since most government business is transacted on Witt and the administrator is the Secretary of State, I would argue that Wittenberg is the de facto government communication channel. It is controlled by the government, and used by both citizens and government.
Joel is just trying to reinforce respect. However, I think we can leave it as is by modifying our Wittequette post to specifically state that removal of your account can happen if you are found by a majority of active citizens to be disprespectful. In summary, I think this is a matter of administration and not policy, especially when the policy has already been established.
|
|
|
Post by Joel Wood on Mar 9, 2006 4:04:14 GMT -6
Samuhél is absolutely correct, the heart of the matter for me is respect. If what we have now is going to work (and from all accounts I do not see why it wouldn't) then I am content.
However, I do not think that because this represents a "seemingly isolated incident" from a minority of the whole that we should give it less credence. In a previous post on this thread I alluded to the aversion some may feel to reacting to one person and one time. But even now we see a faint rumbling of a similar tenor from another citizen. While Snoop Dog and Ups are two separate cases and nothing I have read from Snoop compares to the moronics of the idiot formerly known as Ups, it could certainly progress to that level. My point being, as we grow from 80+ to possibly 800+ it is probable and likely that we will see this issue again. So if this is possible it would be nice to treat Ups not as a separate function, a hiccup, or a fluke but a precedent for future contingencies by which we can discuss and prepare should the need arise again.
Initially, I thought legislation was the way to protect us from future Ups' but now I realize there is probably an easier and better way. The discussion on this topic alone, at least for me, whether any change is made or not, makes the entire effort worthwhile. No matter what, issues have been raised, concerns have been voiced and we are stronger for it.
|
|
Sir X. Pol Briga
Talossan since 11-10-2005 Knight since 12-26-2009
59 is an important number - keep it prime in the thoughts of Talossa
Posts: 1,227
|
Post by Sir X. Pol Briga on Mar 9, 2006 14:12:26 GMT -6
I don't know but I surmise that it is not possible to regulate the participation by citizens within specific forums, that they are either entirely in or entirely out of the system. And, that while the various forums are moderated in a way, I see that as oversight rather than the opportunity to allow postings to be placed or not.
It could be useful to differenciate between various forms of speech - those of personal expression, political speech, commercial speech, administrative speech, and perhaps others. Perhaps a Sergeant at Arms would be appropriate with the ablilty to maintain decorum with certain of the forums.
Open, unrestricted, personal expression would be concentrated on the general wittenberg or chat areas. Restrictions are already placed upon commercial speech - promotion of commercial interests within the system should be constrained to a minimal level. Speech that is considered vulgar, intimidating, or otherwise overwraught would be inspected by the moderator of a given forum, who could make a request for censure (arrest) to the Sgt. of Arms and the case would be decided within the Cort. There would be standards placed upon the Ziu or other discussion areas for political or administrative speech such that when things were to get snippy, personal, or ouside the realm of decency that said discussions would be relocated to a different area until the parties involved were to again proceed in a clear and calm manner of respect. Perhaps there are standards from formal debate which could be applied to certain of these forums.
Right now the only action that appears to be possible would be to address the Cort and to request by some kind of poll that a person be removed entirely from the system (not unlike deportation) vs some way to provide only partial access to the sytem (incarceration, probation, etc).
|
|