|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 15, 2019 9:40:14 GMT -6
Micked
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 9, 2019 19:44:00 GMT -6
When I changed my name, it was a simple as a request.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 1, 2019 21:08:24 GMT -6
I'm the only person who claimed a seat. The idea of having singular control bothers me. So I'm not governing my fiat. Any proposed bills will be consulted. I will not pass anything unless there is support by at least one other person. If one comes out against and another on support, I would consider that 2-1. If more, the number would increase to a clear majority. If a bill is offered and I oppose, but it has a majority, I will use my vote to pass. Consider my vote a puppet formality for an informal Grand Session where everyone sits. Eðo Grischun, what happened to you?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 1, 2019 20:47:58 GMT -6
Congrats!
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Nov 22, 2019 18:47:25 GMT -6
I, Viteu Marcianüs, hereby claim my right to be seated in the next Grand Session of the Estats Xhenerais.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Nov 22, 2019 18:47:12 GMT -6
Well someone has to do it.
Under our provincial Constitution, every citizen of the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg is entitled to claim their seat in the Estats Xhenerais. To do so, you must post your intention to do so during the period of the national election, which has been ongoing for a few days now.
Please use this thread to declare your intention to claim your seat in the Estats Xhenerais. Please note that any post in another thread within the Vuode forums (including those made after the commencement of the national election) will count be counted, but I ask you to make those posts here for administrative convenience.
Thank you,
V
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Nov 22, 2019 18:07:54 GMT -6
I've already stated my position on the issue, including my position on whether Wittiquette is enforceable. You can doubt my position, but, as I said earlier, you do not know what you're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Nov 22, 2019 17:49:58 GMT -6
It's very good and helpful to analyze the current law as applies here, and it's welcome. But it's not the end of the discussion. How I wish that were true Alex, my initial comment stated my position. You twisted that into an absolutism argument and made some legal assertions. I countered that you were incorrect. You then yelled nazis. It's pretty obvious that I know the conversation continues. To borrow (and beat to death) your metaphor, I'm pointing to a mountain. You're not talking about how to build a tunnel or go around the mountain, or even terraform, you're denying the mountain exists. My point is only-there is mountain. I may think that a road to the otherside is a bad idea, but to get there, you need to solve the problem of the mountain first. You're saying that if we don't build the road through the mountain (which doesn't exist), sharks will attack us from tornados. There. It's all stated. Let's move on.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Nov 22, 2019 17:05:23 GMT -6
I'm arguing this based on the free speech protections in the Organic Law. You can call it a policy decision, but if Talossa is a real country and respects the rule of law, its policies must conform to its constituon. So the legal approach, regardless of how you feel, is a important inquiry. It is a policy decision. That's a statement of fact. We're discussing the policies regarding freedom of speech in our public spaces. If the argument is that it's not Organic, then that's arguable and -- if found to be thus -- just going to shift to a discussion of changing the law. Discussing the polices regarding freedom of speech in our public spaces necessarily means we must consider whether the policy is Organic. If a policy proscribing certain words is inOrganic, and people want to change the law, they are free to do so through the appropriate means. I never argued that they could not. My point is that to have a policy that restricts a person from using profanity on Witt (to be certain, I am talking about the forum under General called Wittenberg, not any fora under special interests or royal offices), the Organic Law requires amendment. I must compliment you. You successfully shifted the conversation from free speech to whether we should allow Nazi recruiters. Awesome red herring. It's not a red herring. It's an uncomfortable consequence. If you want to permit all behavior in our public spaces, then you must permit all behavior -- not just your preferred versions. It is certainly a red herring. Your basic argument is that if we do not police certain words, then neo nazis most certainly will take over. Already another posted that we should not permit swastikas. But here is the interesting point, you are talking about banning language that you find objectionable without regard to how others feel about it. How would you do this? A list of specific words? Who gets to determine that list? Is it the Ziu? How do we determine if something is objectionable? Is it only obvious words like "fuck" or is it passive-aggressive "bless your heart." Is it any type of insult or language that gives the sense of impropriety? What about if something is objectionable under US English but not UK English, or vice versa? AND WHY HAVEN'T THE NEO NAZIS APPEARED YET? Somehow, in your mind, saying fuck on Witt means that we're going to become a neo Nazis recruitment site. So you want to ban people from saying fuck to stop neo Nazis from coming to Witt. Fuck, that's a great fucking leap there. And great fucking job at distracting from the fact that you only want to police language and selling using bullshit or fuck as gateway to neonazism. Do you honestly think that pointing out that zero regulation means that there will be zero regulation is some kind of... bizarre leap in logic? It's an appeal to extremes. It's been a bit since my last post; I've yet to see a single neo nazi show up. Also, I did not argue that there must be zero regulation. I argued that any regulation must be Organically permissible. I'm unsure how my position that we should consider whether our actions are Organic when setting policy and regulating speech somehow means that Neo Nazis will take over. The natural extension of your argument is that any time someone proposes we act Organically, then they are saying "we need to make space for neo nazis." If you permit all behavior, it doesn't meant that all behavior is the same. If you permit all behavior, it means that all behavior is permitted. If something belongs to the same set, it doesn't make it equivalent. I mean, what's the argument here -- besides your argument from incredulity? Don't get all vague on me, not when you were so profusely specific earlier. What's going to stop a multi-level marketer from spamming Witt with scams, if they are permitted to do so? My incredulity? Alex, all I have argued is that any regulation must be permissible under the Organic Law. I do not read the Organic Law to permit the type of policy regulating specific words in the public square as permissible. You have countered, "well we can regulate some behavior so we can regulate all behavior... also, neo nazis." I am pretty sure that, under Talossan law, you cannot murder someone. Just because the Organic Law says that we can criminalize murder does not mean that we can criminalize or regulate all behavior. Similarly, just because we can criminalize public drunkenness does not mean we can prohibit someone from cursing in public. Like, this is elementary, dude. But I'm not playing your game any longer. We already had a scammer on Witt back in 2007ish. He was not discouraged by any of our laws or policies. The UC could find that commercial speech is not protected speech (something to which I would not except), thus a policy prohibiting mass marketing would be organic. Neo nazis are not going to take over Talossa en masse. Let's also acknowledge some of the good things from protecting freedom of speech. We need not look further than the difference in how the US and the UK approach defamation. In the UK, when someone claims defamation, the alleged statement is presumed true; in the US, the person asserting defamation has the burden of proof because of, primarily, the First Amendment's protections on speech. In the UK, the rich and powerful can simply sue a reporter or anyone who says something negative, and the individual will have to prove what they said was not defamation. It has a chilling effect on speech. Alex, after we begin limiting language and impeding on an individual's right to free speech, how we will stop the mountain of defamation cases in Talossan courts that will surely follow?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Nov 22, 2019 15:51:40 GMT -6
I'm arguing this based on the free speech protections in the Organic Law. You can call it a policy decision, but if Talossa is a real country and respects the rule of law, its policies must conform to its constituon. So the legal approach, regardless of how you feel, is an important inquiry. Also, banning certain words, like fuck, is a content specific policy that would not be Organically permissible. That is my point.
I must compliment you. You successfully shifted the conversation from free speech to whether we should allow Nazi recruiters. Awesome red herring.
Somehow, in your mind, saying fuck on Witt means that we're going to become a neo Nazis recruitment site. So you want to ban people from saying fuck to stop neo Nazis from coming to Witt. Fuck, that's a great fucking leap there. And great fucking job at distracting from the fact that you only want to police language and selling using bullshit or fuck as gateway to neonazism.
*My use of fuck is intentional to convey the point that, in fact, profanity isn't the gateway drug to Nazism. The sysadmin will not receive any argument from me if they decide to edit the post to omit letters in the proposed offending language.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Nov 22, 2019 13:57:55 GMT -6
I would say that comparing someone who uses "profane" language to a Nazi is a false equivalency. But let's even go with that. I didn't do that. I said that if you establish a rule saying that there are no limits on speech in our public square, then there's going to be consequences beyond the immediate circumstance of profanity. And that is true. Public intoxication, disturbing the peace, advertising laws, are not free speech issues. Again, you can hold a sign with neo Nazis rhetoric in the public square and it's fine from a free speech standpoint. A private billboard can have whatever it wants. Advertising on government buildings or the like ( let's use the NYC Subway as an example because this has come up in suit) cannot discriminate against speech because the NYC subway is government run. It sells advertisment space to raise revenue. It can say "no ads related to religion" and, as long as it's applied to all, it's okay. It does not mean someone on the subway can't walk around preaching or holding a sign while in transit that is religious. Similarly, a public building like a school can allow its space to be used for public events, while restricting who can use it provided the proscription is content neutral. So it too can say, "yes, a Christian group can use the gym after hours" but that means so can Muslims, Jews, atheists, etc. It can say, "no politics," and as long as that applies to all politics, it's okay. This is different than a person standing on Main Street or in the Public Square. To wit--even SCOTUS has thrown out laws that required anti-choice protesters remain a specific distance from a women's clinic, and also held that laws restricting protests on public streets at funerals (a la Westboro Baptist Church) breached free speech. Much of the first objection seems to rely on semantics, frankly. It's fine if you want to wave away laws about public order as not free speech issues, but the same principles still apply. You can't stand on a street corner and shriek racial slurs without getting in trouble. You can't stand on our "street corner" and do the same thing without getting in trouble. This is as it should be. Call it "free speech" or not -- it doesn't really matter except for pedantry's sake. Other aspects of this are simply wrong. There's a ton of restrictions on posting written speech/advertising in NYC subways for the sake of aesthetics and practicality. You can't put flyers in the cars, for example. You can't put up pornographic advertising The same principles apply. Permitting unlimited advertising in our own public spaces would make using them less practical and pleasant, so we restrict it. Westboro Baptist Church is another great example to support my points. In many states, there are laws which restrict their free speech at funerals with regards to "time, place, and manner." In Nebraska, they can't come within 500 feet of the event. SCOTUS denied review of a recent challenge to the law. Their speech is regulated so that it is not unduly disruptive of other people's activity. The restrictions are applied evenly, like NYC when permitting advertising, but they still exist. It's rather like the recent Thunderdome idea, where people who were rude or disruptive would be censored by having their posts removed from the discourse to another spot. These examples all seem to strongly and emphatically reinforce my case: there are laws governing speech and conduct in public, and that is a good thing. It's not semantics. Let's not overlook that we're both from the US and are speaking from a US perspective. Notably, the right to free speech in the Organic Law is broader than under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. So we can take some guidance from the US. How does public drunkenness implicate free speech? Advertising is a form of speech that that can be either informative or commercial, both of which are entitled to some degree of free speech protections but require less scrutiny when the government chooses to regulate. You broad statements are wrong, conflate different types of speech, and ignore legal standards all for some misguided general conclusion. You then dismiss as pedantry pointing out that your assertions completely miss the mark and misrepresent the law. To summarize your premise--because there are laws that restrict public speech, then any speech can be restricted in the public forum. This. Is. Not. How. It. Works. You're ignoring the constitutional framework in which those restrictions are permitted. When confronted with it, you merely respond "semantic" and "pedantry." I do not know why I have to say this but I do--denying cert on a matter is not the Supreme Court adopting or approving the issue. It is just denying cert. The holding in the case will be restricted to only that Federal Circuit, meaning you can very well have the federal courts interpreting the law different in States. Generally the Supreme Court steps in to fix this, but sometimes they do not want to weigh in until more circuit courts have made decisions to see how it develops. One example is same-sex marriage--when the Circuit Courts unanimously struck down laws banning marriage equality, the Supreme Court denied cert. Afterwards, the Fifth Circuit upheld a ban, creating a circuit split. The Supreme Court accepted cert on that case. But, again, that does not always happen (the 11th Circuit has held that Title VII protects transgender people since 2011; there's been several splits and certs denied. The Supreme Court only this year accepted cert). Now, let's actually put on our thinking caps and look at how restrictions on free speech work in the US. I'll quote directly from the US Supreme Court in Snyder v. Phelps (2011), "Speech on matters of public concern is at the heart of the First Amendment's protection. The First Amendment reflects a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open. That is because speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government" (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted). Public speech is "any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community, or when it is a subject of legitimate news interest; that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public. The arguably inappropriate or controversial character of a statement is irrelevant to the question whether it deals with a matter of public concern." In Snyder, the Court upheld the right for members of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest military funerals. I will refrain from listing their signs, but they contain incredibly offensive anti-LGBTQ pejoratives, thanks god for 9/11, and says "you're going to hell." That was public speech. Their right to protest and the right to free speech was protected. After Snyder, a time/manner/place restriction was passed to create a content neutral buffer zone around military funerals. The Supreme Court has not reviewed those statutes. The Eighth Circuit may have upheld it, and the Supreme Court denied cert, but it does not make it binding on the Second Circuit or any lower court in another circuit. But what do we have in Snyder--the right to free speech was protected. So what is the legal standard? The government may impose a reasonable restriction on the time, place, or manner of protected speech provided that the restriction is justified without reference to the content, that it is narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that it leaves open an ample alternative channel to communication the information. To make this elementary, the time, place, manner restriction (1) must not be content based; (2) is narrowly tailored; (3) serves a significant governmental interest; and (4) leaves an ample alternative to convey that information. What is not content neutral? Picking and choose the words that can be conveyed. For example, profanity on a shirt in the public fora that does not speak to prurient interest is protected and cannot be banned, because, as the US Supreme Court reasoned, " one man's vulgarity is another's lyric." Displaying a swastika is protected under free speech cannot be banned and is protected. Each failed that first element. So now the second element, narrowly tailored. That is met when the government demonstrates that the measure is the least restrictive measure and loses if there is another avenue. Put another way, the government cannot choose the easier route. Let's take, for example, the 2007 Massachusetts law that created a 35-foot buffer zone proscribing people from approaching patients entering or leaving a clinic that assists in terminating pregnancies. The petitioners, anti-choicer, were not protesting, but wished only to engage in a conversation with those patients. At the end of the day, it did not matter that the restriction was content-neutral, satisfied a legitimate government interest, because it was not narrowly tailor and there were least restrictive means. Importantly, sidewalks and public ways are traditionally open for speech activities and public fora. What about advertisement? That's easy--generally, there is informative advertisement and commercial advertisement. Regulations on false/misleading advertisement or for an illegal activity have less restrictive requirements. But when it is not about false/misleading advertisement or about an illegal activity, the Government must assert a substantial interest and for it to be narrowly drawn, but not the least restrictive. The regulation cannot, however, extend beyond the Government's interest. In fact, laws requiring drug pricing, alcohol pricing, or more information on tobacco have been struck down. Your point about NYC subways misses the mark. I did not say you can just go and place posters in the subway. I said that the MTA sells advertising space to raise revenue, but, because it is a public entity, must do so in a manner that respects free speech. Of course I can't just walk around placing posters. I need to go through proper channels. Relevant here, the MTA used to accept noncommercial and commercial advertisement and political ads. By accepting political ads, it made itself a traditional public fora. However, political ads were only allowed if they did not "imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace." Along comes an anti-Muslim group that wanted to advertise political ads that were highly offensive. The courts held that the regulation breached free speech. The MTA simply changed its rule to ban all political ads, thereby degrading its status to limited public fora, thus mooting the case. Your reply is nonsense, somehow thinks public drunkenness is free speech, does not consider that I'm stating that Witt, this particular part of Witt, not the Cort forum, not the college forum, etc., is the equivalent of a public forum in Talossa that enables us to engage in the free flow of ideas. You can, in fact, walk down the street yelling profanity. You can, in fact, display a swastika while hanging out on a street corner. Even in the only three areas that do not receive First Amendment protections--incitement to violence, fighting words, or obscenity (think really horrific porn that is basically debased smut, but also the infamous "I know it when I see it" quote)--outside of the initial cases, I do not know of a single instance where the Supreme Court applied any of those to speech before it to find it was not protected. Alex, just because there is some restriction on Free Speech does not mean that any speech that the government finds offensive can be restricted. There's test involved. And it's not pedantic to point out that you have no damn idea what you're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Nov 22, 2019 10:19:21 GMT -6
*But it means is that the offending person cant endure legal repercussion or have their speech effectively muted by government action.
Quick clarity-I meant criminal liability not, with the exception of parliamentary immunity, civil liability for defamation. My point is that banning a Witt account for actual speech in the public square/main street is the equivalent of the Talossan criminal punishment of expulsion, even if for a minute, hour,day, week, month, year, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Nov 22, 2019 9:51:02 GMT -6
I find it hard to believe that free speech absolutism really goes as far as has been suggested. On the new Witt, does anyone really want no rules governing public conduct at all? We're a small community, but if we ever go back to expanding instead of shrinking, we're going to see serious problems in that case. We would be a captive audience for multi-level marketers and scammers, for one. In a community of forty active folks, we all know enough to ignore Tariq Zubair's scams -- but it doesn't take a much bigger community before he finds a mark or two. Or Talossa has had fascist roots back in the day, thanks to the weird obsessions of youth -- is it hard to imagine a neo-Nazi taking a shine to a place with a province once named after Mussolini and posting Turner Diaries excerpts? Every public square in the world has laws governing behavior. Public intoxication, disturbing the peace, advertising laws, and the like. Before we discard our equivalents, people should think about the alternatives. I would say that comparing someone who uses "profane" language to a Nazi is a false equivalency. But let's even go with that. Public intoxication, disturbing the peace, advertising laws, are not free speech issues. Again, you can hold a sign with neo Nazis rhetoric in the public square and it's fine from a free speech standpoint. A private billboard can have whatever it wants. Advertising on government buildings or the like ( let's use the NYC Subway as an example because this has come up in suit) cannot discriminate against speech because the NYC subway is government run. It sells advertisment space to raise revenue. It can say "no ads related to religion" and, as long as it's applied to all, it's okay. It does not mean someone on the subway can't walk around preaching or holding a sign while in transit that is religious. Similarly, a public building like a school can allow its space to be used for public events, while restricting who can use it provided the proscription is content neutral. So it too can say, "yes, a Christian group can use the gym after hours" but that means so can Muslims, Jews, atheists, etc. It can say, "no politics," and as long as that applies to all politics, it's okay. This is different than a person standing on Main Street or in the Public Square. To wit--even SCOTUS has thrown out laws that required anti-choice protesters remain a specific distance from a women's clinic, and also held that laws restricting protests on public streets at funerals (a la Westboro Baptist Church) breached free speech. To be clear, what we're talking about is Talossa's primary, and for many, only Public Square for the free range of ideas, its only Main Street. The topic is the ability to stand on our equivalent of a public street and express your viewpoints. It is not the ability to go into the Cort forum and do the same. Further, the immunity for the Ziu and the Hopper are different in that they are government organs for the very purpose of debate, no matter how lively, and at minimum, an MZ is entitled to imminuity for anything said in speech and debate in the Ziu, which is pretty much universally respected in every democratic country in the world. And again, nothing I said means that people have to listen or engage. Or that people cant call another person out. Nothing means that a private entity without any government role can't say, fire someone from work. Or that even the government couldn't terminate the neo Nazis employee or dismiss the minister. But it means is that the offending person cant endure legal repercussion or have their speech effectively muted by government action. Banning a Witt account does just that.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Nov 22, 2019 6:05:04 GMT -6
Quasi-Government run forum. Freedom of speech means the government can't prosecute you. You, on the other hand, can just ignore and move on. For what it's worth, I didn't mean to say that the use of the word "bullshit" was problematic. I rarely object to profanity, although as you can attest, I tend to prefer that the political discourse remains civil. What seemed weird to me is that, in the span of a few days, "freedom of speech" was used by two people, one the polar opposite of the other, to justify what they were saying as if the bad government was going to curbstomp them for their opinions. Audrada shared a totally legit opinion, which I don't agree with but is not anything outlandish, and then used "freedom of speech" to justify saying it's "bullshit". Mr. Rap Battle clutched his pearls and called for free speech at the first criticism of his manifesto. Pardon the Euroview, but this looks like much ado about nothing.
Fair enough. I didn't know about the other instance... Actually, I don't know what you're talking about (and I kinda don't want to. Ignorance is bliss).
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Nov 21, 2019 23:31:16 GMT -6
Saying Witt is not Talossa is nonsensical. Of course it's Talossa. Its new iteration will become Talossa. Why? Simple, it's our virtual Talossa.
I can walk on a street in Washington, DC with a poster containing every "profane" word in English. The government can't touch me. People can confront me and call me names. Freedom of speech doesn't mean others have to listen or like what you have to say. Similarly, this part of Witt is sorta the town square for Talossa. The Government makes announcements; private citizens make announcements; issues are raised, discussed, and debated; people brainstorm; occasionally come to complain. It's the central location that is our Main Street.
Similarly, Witt hosts the actual places where our institutions meet. Wittetiquette has no authority in the Ziu or hopper boards. Suspending a profile of an MZ is literally to prevent them from doing their job.
Provincial boards are microcosms of the same.
If you start suspending people's accounts to regulate language, you're effectively expelling them from Talossan life. This is grossly inOrganic. How can anyone meaningfully engage in Talossan life without engaging in Witt?
I don't think the OP used "freedom of speech" to mean Epiq had to approve the use of "bullshit." Only that it could be used.
At the end of the day, Wittetiquette is not law. And is being used to silence debate simply because someone wants to impose their morals on others.
But that's slightly permissible in some of the forums here because not all are really intended for public use (think college of arms; going in there to talk about how confusing the end to the Man in the High Castle is just as inappropriate as using profanity). The areas specifically aimed at public use or to host state organs required under the Organic Law are different. The hopper is meant for everyone, including non MZs, to debate legislation. I'd say that all of it is entitled to parliamentary imminuity. The Ziu is different--non MZs posting their well reasoned thoughts in there, uninvited, is highly improper. Someone using profane language, in a debate in the capacity as an MZ, gets immunity. It's a state organ. The Corts get to control who gets to speak in their slice of Witt.
But here, in this forum, it's the main Street, the town square. At the end of the day, it still all comes down to a bunch of victorians desiring to control language. And that is what is being proposed--control of language. Well, that's doubleplusungood. And really, who gets to decide what words are offensive? Bullshit is not offensive or even a bad word where I live.
Once the new forum that is state run is operational, Talossa needs to examine how forums play into free speech in other countries. For instance, in the US, public schools do not have to allow certain types of speech, but if it permits one viewpoint, it must permit them all. The forum here on And if the Government is providing the town square, the Main Street, the primary meeting place for its citizens to engage, well, there shouldn't be restrictions on speech. I don't see how you can say you believe in free speech but only if it doesn't offend you.
Now, of course, there's still some extremes, like "fighting words," "obscenity [think extreme porn]" or "incitement to violance."
At the end of the day, there aren't easy answers. Of course someone who posts profane language can simply be ostracized, ignored, and they will eventually go away, much like real life. People don't have to listen to them and can simply block them. It's that simple. You don't need to censor them to get it to stop.
All of this to say--Witt is the heart of Talossa. Free speech was not used here as a "you can't challenge me on my language" but "the admins can't edit my post." And frankly, the entire discussion on the topic just shows how dangerous this path of Talossan newspeak is when suddenly bullshit is problamatic.
|
|