Proposal: Bill Of Rights

[Darkness' Edge]

This too has become relevant in recent days, and I think it's important we add this.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Article V: Bill Of Rights

Clause 1: No person shall be denied the right to become a Peacekeeper citizen.

Clause 2: No citizen shall ever be denied the right to vote in any poll.

Clause 3: Free speech shall not be abridged unless it violates Apolyton rules.

Clause 4: No one shall be banned permanently from participating in the democracy game, excluding those who are permanently banned from Apolyton. Note that people may still be banned for any amount of time, as long as it is not permanent.

Clause 5: The right to associate into any form of organization shall not be denied.

Clause 6: No citizen may be punished in any way without due process of law.

Clause 7: The government may not knowingly hide information or give false information to the people.

[Method]

[DeathByTheSword]

as long as there is nothing in there that bounds our choises in the game

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Darkness' Edge
Clause 3: Free speech shall not be abridged unless it violates Apolyton rules.

How does this effect the issue of political propaganda, an inheriently immoral thing?

Originally posted by Darkness' Edge
Clause 7: The government may not knowingly hide information or give false information to the people.

What about an NGO knowingly giving false information to the people? Should they be reprimanded for such?

[DeathByTheSword]

i dont think you can because it is a NON-goverment organization you probably can sue them if we get a court installed. liking this idea ONLY for role-playing purposes.

[Archaic]

Given the unlikelyhood of finding an impartial jury or even impartial judge, I don't think that's an option.

[Darkness' Edge]

Originally posted by Archaic
How does this effect the issue of political propaganda, an inheriently immoral thing?

I thought it was pretty clear. Unless it violates Apolyton rules, it is allowed. It provides a clear defence for freedom of speech anywhere in the forum.

Originally posted by Archaic
What about an NGO knowingly giving false information to the people? Should they be reprimanded for such?

That's an issue for the court. File a complaint with the justices, and it will be dealt with.

Archaic, as much as I don't want you in office, I will always be happy to give you a fair hearing if I end up a judge. This issue shouldn't come up though, because an NGO won't have any information that the people don't already have.

Still, if you have a complaint, there's the court.

[Pandemoniak]

It will perfectly go with the Court !
Two Thumbs Up !

[Darkness' Edge]

Thanks, Pande.

I've been discussing this with DBTS, and as a concession, I'd be prepared to include a defamation clause, where if someone claimed they had been defamed, they could appeal to the court.

[Pandemoniak]

I'd be prepared to include a defamation clause, where if someone claimed they had been defamed, they could appeal to the court.

It would certainly be fair, but it could be used for any kind of abuses. I guess you are aware that the very definition of "defamation" must be very clearly explained in this bill of rights if we want to avoid any abuses and trials every two days...
One complain for defamation, the other says im not a defamator, but u say i am, so u defame me, and the first say....

[Darkness' Edge]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak

It would certainly be fair, but it could be used for any kind of abuses. I guess you are aware that the very definition of "defamation" must be very clearly explained in this bill of rights if we want to avoid any abuses and trials every two days...
One complain for defamation, the other says im not a defamator, but u say i am, so u defame me, and the first say....

Yeah, I get your point. If this clause goes in, I'll get a dictionary to define it exactly.

Comments on a defamation clause?
Any other comments?

I want to put this to a vote within a day or two, and get it out of the way, because it's the smallest and least controversial of the three.

[Pandemoniak]

de-fame : v [T] formal to write or say something that makes people have an unfairly bad opinion of someone or something.
--- Longman dictionary of contemporary english, 2095 Edition. (OOC/ 1995 edition )
therefore, the two main things that have to be taken account of are :
- fairly : does this bad opinion is deserved or not
- make people : there remains the difference between a joke and defamation.

[Darkness' Edge]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
de-fame : v [T] formal to write or say something that makes people have an unfairly bad opinion of someone or something.
--- Longman dictionary of contemporary english, 2095 Edition. (OOC/ 1995 edition )
therefore, the two main things that have to be taken account of are :
- fairly : does this bad opinion is deserved or not
- make people : there remains the difference between a joke and defamation.

damn
i'll have to go find a legal definition somewhere
because it's not quite that simple in terms of the defamation that one sues for

[lucky22]

Originally posted by Darkness' Edge


damn
i'll have to go find a legal definition somewhere
because it's not quite that simple in terms of the defamation that one sues for

Include "slander" in your definition check and you'll be on solid ground, I wager.

[Kassiopeia]

The Court might end up swamped with defamation/slander charges (I hope not, but it's possible) since it could be used as a 'weapon'.

This could be countered with having penance for those clearly overabusing the system, but this should be carried out in a way that average Joe and Jane Democracygamer won't be afraid to come up front with his/her case.