|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 18, 2014 10:44:40 GMT -6
Your honor, we appreciate the defendant swiftly supplying his rebuttal. To clarify we have no intention to introduce any further arguments in closing statements. We believe that both parties have sufficiently argued their cases and leave it to the court to determine the most equitable solution. Closing arguments in this matter should best be used for summarization.
Frankly, no matter how the court rules, it cannot be said that the losing side did not prevail for lack of well reasoned analysis of law.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Jul 18, 2014 13:56:15 GMT -6
The court would agree that both counselors are quite adept at the law and legal reasoning. To answer the question posed by the defense, a closing argument should not introduce new evidence or legal theories but, as the plaintiff rightly pointed out, be essentially a summation of the case as a whole. With this brief, does either party have any other motions? If not, the court will await the summation from the plaintiff.
|
|
|
Case 14-03
Jul 18, 2014 15:32:00 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 18, 2014 15:32:00 GMT -6
I have nothing further, and await the plaintiff's closing with gratitude for the kind words.
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 18, 2014 17:50:24 GMT -6
Your honor, before the court is a matter unforeseen by our founders, writers of the Organic Law and our most recent governments. The law allows for ministries to initiate programs and programs like the Wiki are what make our nation great. Contrary to the defendant's assertions, we don't feel that the historical record should be stripped to the barest of necessities. We never made such an assertion.
What we did assert is that the wiki administrator was never granted the authority to unilaterally make all editorial decisions. Here we have a wiki. Sure, people are going to make submissions. But the wiki also allows for deletions. In this instance a user was stopped from deleting some content he had added. Why? Because the defendant said so. What was his recourse? According to the defendant, nothing. There is no committee to handle redactions and evaluate their merit. There is no petition to be filed. There is nothing beyond the final seal of the defendant. As we stated in our various filings, the defendant claims quite a bit of authority for himself despite having not been empowered by law, which would also have ensured appropriate checks and balances.
But all of these matters must be looked at in the light of how we, as a society, want to treat those who choose to leave us. My client did not simply fall inactive on Witt. He did not resign all posts and merely drop off of the Talossan radar. He took the active steps to separate himself from our society by renouncing his citizenship. As part of his departure, he wanted to separate his Talossan self from his non-Talossan self.
By this action, my client merely wants the things he wrote about himself redacted. He was a public servant. There are facts about his Talossan life relevant to our historical record. He doesn't object to these items remaining. Nor have we pursued a permanent injunction barring any future works authored by others. He wants his photo, and the often subjective (and non-verifiable) words he wrote about himself removed from the record.
The court has the power today to affirm the seriousness of the wiki licensing agreements while simultaneously upholding an individual's right to petition for removal. To rule in favor of the defendant, however, leaves these important decisions in the hands of a single government employee without oversight. It serves the best interests of our nation to avoid the latter position. Let prospective citizens see that we respect all Talossans, past, present and future. Let them see that government affairs are not merely sole proprietorships with only the illusion of democracy.
Thank you, your honor. We rest our case.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Jul 18, 2014 18:31:53 GMT -6
Thank you counselor. The court will now hear the summation of the defense.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 18, 2014 19:27:04 GMT -6
Your Honour, I could spend significant time describing the oversight on the wiki. After all, the variety of bureaucrats and administrators who operate under the wiki managers have worked so well that this is the first issue to arise in the years since the site's inception, though ultimate authority for a state website does reside in a state official. This cort has admitted into evidence the items that show how the defendants worked to accommodate the demands of the plaintiff, eradicating large amounts of material. I could even point to the superiors over the wiki managers - the Minister of Stuff or his boss, the Seneschal. This matter was discussed with the Minister of Stuff and the Seneschal both as they arrived in office, and they decided not to overrule the wiki manager. Simply because the plaintiff is upset that no one agreed with him does not mean that there was not oversight.
Ultimately, though, our time is better spent on reflecting that, even if there was a lack of oversight, this is not a problem to be solved in this chamber. If citizens are unhappy with how state properties like TalossaWiki are administered, then they should appeal to their government. If the government does not listen, then they should appeal to their elected representatives. If their representatives do not listen, they should choose new representatives. For all the talk of the workings of democracy from the plaintiff, it is only by dismissing the complaint that true democracy will actually have a chance to work. Let the people decide if they are happy with how the state is run. If they are not, let them alter the state to suit them. This is far preferable to judicial fiat, appealing to a judge to intervene simply because you are unhappy with a decision.
This case should be dismissed in full, with no wavering or qualifications, despite the distaste we might feel in retaining this information against the plaintiff's will. There is no foundation in law for any other decision.
The right to privacy is inadequate: the plaintiff gave it up when he made this material public.
Copyright is inadequate: the plaintiff knowingly ceded his rights to the material when he submitted it.
Renunciation is inadequate: it has no power to reach into the past and eradicate the citizenship that once was.
Restraint of state authority is inadequate: the state has full authority to administer those properties it creates under mandate of the law.
The "right to be forgotten" is inadequate: it is inapplicable and not recognized in our realm, having no foundation in our law.
Ultimately, there is no legal basis at all to this complaint - because the heart of this case is that someone simply disagrees with a decision of the government. That is unfortunate, since the government has attempted to work with them and made them happy, but "I just didn't like it" is no grounds for a lawsuit.
After all, what is the alternative? Should this cort create a right to privacy that survives even voluntary publicity? Should this cort prop up copyright so that it may not be ceded, even if the writer wishes? Should this cort enchant the right to renounce, allowing it to dissolve any contract and eradicate history? Should this cort decide the government made a bad decision, overturning by the judicial fiat of one judge what should be settled by democratic election? Should this cort simply create a "right to be forgotten" of even greater scope than has very recently proposed in a single foreign court, annulling freedom of expression in favor of a new right fabricated from whole cloth?
This situation is unfortunate and sad in so many ways. We have lost a citizen, and he so regrets his time in the country that he wishes to sever his ties completely - even trying to reach into the past and wipe out his time with us. We should be saddened by his departure, but stand firm against his request. It's not just his history, after all. It's our nation's history.
Viteu Marcianüs contributed to a colouring book for Dandelions. For right now, at least, it says so on the TalossaWiki page about him. That's a contribution to our culture and our history. It's a small contribution, of course. But imagine. Imagine that, ten years from now, a citizen is looking through the list of past Senators. He's never heard of this "Viteu" guy, who renounced a long time ago. But as he glances across the page, he notices that scrap of history. A colouring book for Dandelions... huh. That's a cool idea, the citizen thinks. And probably it goes no further than that, just another quirky bit of the past that was noticed and appreciated. Or maybe the citizen thinks it's such a good idea, he might do that too. Maybe the citizen thinks that he'll get a few friends to help, and make it a cute project. Maybe it's not a citizen at all, but an idle Internet surfer, and this is one of the myriad amazing Talossan things that convinces him to immigrate.
In the unknown possibilities of the future, Viteu Marcianüs' contributions to Talossan culture and history will be significant. Not earth-shaking or immense, but certainly significant. Yes, we hope that the years of our great nation will be many - maybe even innumerable. We wish for a Talossan history that stretches out to every horizon like the sea, a great ocean in which Viteu Marcianüs' efforts will be only a single drop.
But what is an ocean, if not a multitude of drops?
Preserve our past. Uphold the law. Dismiss this case.
With thanks to David Mitchell and to the Kingdom of Talossa, the defense rests its case.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Jul 18, 2014 23:34:55 GMT -6
The court will now stand in recess as it considers the case. The court will issue its ruling in due time. The court expects that a ruling will be issued within a week.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Jul 21, 2014 9:55:45 GMT -6
The Magistrate’s Courts of the Kingdom of Talossa
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
In the matter of
Viteu Marcianüs
against
The Rt. Hon. Alexandreu Davinescu The Ministry of Stuff His Majesty’s Government
The Honorable Magistrate Txec dal Nordselva presiding
Judicial Ruling
Over the course of this trial, counselors have presented several legal theories to the court and the court will endeavor to respond to what it believes are the most pertinent in this case.
In the complaint, the plaintiff asserts "The Talossa Wiki is presented as an official government web project beginning with the announcement of its launch on Witt (issued under government seal) to its management by the Minister of Stuff. S:reu Davinescu rightly states that Talossan Privacy Laws do not allow citizens or former citizens the right to amend public records which relate to them. However, we contend that the Talossa Wiki is not a public record...The Talossan Wiki was not created by statute.”
The defense raised what it believes were applicable statutory laws that, while not specifically authorizing the creation of a Wiki, do grant the government the authority to do so in general terms. Specifically, the defense presented Org.XII.6 and statutes Lex.D.2.7, Lex.D.2.10, Lex.A.21. The court will in this ruling examine each of these laws and determine their applicability to this case.
Org.XII.6 states "The Minister of Stuff shall prepare, at the behest of the Cosâ, the Seneschál, or on his own initiative, informative texts about the Kingdom of Talossa.” The court finds that this passage of the Organic Law does not specifically mention WIki’s but it does not specifically exclude them either. In fact, it is reasonable to assume that when the Organic Law was drafted this passage was kept reasonably broad to incorporate new technologies that could be seen as “informative texts.” This view of the Organic Law is further strengthened by Lex.A.21. in which is stated “ the Ziu hereby requires that any and all official or officially-sanctioned websites, social networking pages, online Embassies, and any other future form of Internet group be run by an assigned Ministry from the Prime Minister, assigned member of the government, or private citizens, when explicit permission is granted by the Prime Minister.” This statute was created by the 39th Cosa in April of 2009. Therefore, the court finds that under Org.XII.6. and Lex.A.21., the government does possess the necessary authority to create the Wiki and that any material present on the Wiki after April 2009 falls under this defined authority.
Lex.D.2.7. states "The Minister of Culture, heading the Ministry of Culture, who shall promote Talossan culture, including our national language, our musical and sporting heritage, our mythical Berber connections, and all of our other way cool quirks.” While the Wiki does reflect several aspects of national culture within its pages, the court does not find this statute to be applicable in this case.
Lex.D.2.10. reads "The Minister of Stuff, heading the Ministry of Stuff, which shall be responsible for the promotion of the Kingdom through public relations. The Ministrà del Sanavar da Talossa al Ultra-Fiôvân Folâs (Ministry of Stuff) shall dutifully ensure that the Kingdom and events therein are regularly publicized in any and all worldwide media, and shall produce and circulate on a regular basis a national publication for internal and external promotion of all things Talossan.” A wiki is an online database that may or not be public. The national wiki is public and has been cited by immigrants to Talossa as a factor in immigration. Therefore, the court finds this statute to be applicable as it acts as a form of public relations.
The court rules therefore that the government possesses the right to creation and maintenance of the Wiki.
The plaintiff raised the issue of an expectation of privacy and argued that the plaintiff possesses such a right. The court does not argue that any citizen of Talossa loses its right of privacy as it relates to the Wiki. However, in examining the right to privacy, the court must consider what the right to privacy means. In considering the right to privacy, the court used the following rubric to determine of privacy was violated in this case: 1. has the plaintiff’s identity been appropriated for the defendants benefit, 2., has the plaintiff been placed in a false light in the public eye, 3., have private facts about the plaintiff been publicly disclosed, and 4., has there been an unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion or solitude of the plaintiff?
Test 1: Appropriating the plaintiff's identity for the defendant's benefit. The court cannot find any reason or evidence to support that the defendant has benefited in any way in any potential appropriation of the plaintiff’s identity. The plaintiff himself placed information about his identity on the Wiki. Additionally, nowhere is it mentioned the non-Talossan name of the plaintiff. Yet it must be reflected that the plaintiff himself put that information there. The plaintiff voluntarily uploaded his image and text about himself and consented to the Wiki’s privacy policies and copyright policies. He voluntarily waived his total control over this content and during the case he both stipulated and testified that these acts did in fact occur. The section entitled “Life Outside of Talossa” does however give biographical information but the plaintiff publicly made this information available voiding his expectation of privacy.
Test 2: Placing the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye. There is no question by the court that none of the material on the Wiki page place the plaintiff in a false light. All of the information posted by the plaintiff is assumed to be accurate and does not cause injury to the plaintiff. It is possible that material posted by other wiki editors could be incorrect, however the court finds no reason to suspect this as being the case.
Test 3: Publicly disclosing private facts about the plaintiff. It may be argued that the section “Life Outside of Talossa” could be publicly disclosed private facts. In general, one cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy in things held out to the public. The plaintiff himself posted these details so this test is not met.
Test 4: Unreasonably intruding upon the seclusion or solitude of the plaintiff. The court believes that this test in and of itself is the most relevant in this case. Does the wiki unreasonably intrude upon the seclusion or solitude of the plaintiff? The court sees no example in the public Wiki page nor any of the edited pages that unreasonably intrude. It is without merit that these pages are preserved in any form that would create an intrusion. Had the plaintiff not consented to the Wiki entry content, this may have been the case. Nothing in this case rises to the level of intrusion or forces the plaintiff to put aside his solitude to engage in any fashion with any Talossan. In fact, it could be argued that this entire case and the requests for revision prior to it act as waivers to seclusion or solitude as the plaintiff.
The court finds that there has been no violation to the rights of privacy of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff repeatedly argued that their exists a “right to be forgotten” as specified under recent rulings by courts in the European Union. While the courts of Talossa do look to accepted principles of Anglo-American law, the Organic Law, Statutory Law and the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms trump any foreign laws. It cannot be argued that a very recent viewpoint on the right to be forgotten in one foreign court unilaterally applies to Talossa. In fact, the very ruling used as an argument in this case is specific in its application as it applies only to the Charter of the European Union. The court is free to disregard this European ruling because it is not, the the view of this court, part of accepted principles of Anglo-American law. Even if one were to argue that it could be, it must be understood that Talossa is not a signatory to the European Charter and is not bound by its laws.
In looking to our own Covenants of Rights and Freedoms, the court notes that the first right is applicable in this case. Specifically, "No law shall exist abridging the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication except in case of public order or morals. Censorship shall never exist in Talossa; every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the libelous abuse of that right.” This right uses several methods to determine if has been violated, including public order or morals and libelous abuse. The court can find no example in this case that points to a violation of public order or morals nor that of libelous abuse. The defendant, in preserving the Wiki, has not libeled the plaintiff nor has the plaintiff’s publicly posted material been an issue relating to public order or morality of Talossans.
The sixth covenant speaks to the issue of privacy "Liberty consists of any action which is not detrimental to others, and no right herein enumerated, or elsewhere recognised by the Cosâ, shall extend to anyone engaged in activities which injure, endanger, risk or compromise the physical health, privacy, or tranquility of other persons through the pretended exercise of said right.” The court has already found that the privacy of the plaintiff was not violated. It further finds that their exists no injury to the plaintiff as relates to this covenant. Any injury that may have occurred was not at the behest of the defense.
The plaintiff raised support of its assertion in the right to be forgotten the concept of renunciation and that in so doing, all ties with the nation are severed to include the history of the renounced citizen and contracts entered into. The plaintiff used the example of divorce as an example. The court finds this line or reasoning to be insufficient. Throughout history, men and women have voluntarily left their nations and emigrated elsewhere or publicly disavowed their citizenship and yet these men and women may still be represented in the histories of their nations. Additionally, the mere act of a divorce does not nullify contracts or obligations entered into. Renunciation is not tantamount to divorce. Were renunciation an absolute that permanently removes someone from the memory of Talossa, our national history would consist only of those currently active citizens and many current citizens would not be citizens as several have at one time or another renounced and then re-immigrated.
Therefore, in light of the evidence and briefs submitted by both parties, this case is dismissed.
Court is adjourned.
|
|
|
Case 14-03
Jul 21, 2014 10:00:29 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 21, 2014 10:00:29 GMT -6
Thank you, your Honour.
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 21, 2014 10:41:52 GMT -6
We thank the court for its consideration.
|
|