The Court of Apolytonia is in Session: Case 5

[jdjdjd]

Esteemed Members of the Court,

First, I would like to extend my apologies to The Court, Mr. Orange, UnOrthOdOx, E_T, adaMada, and anyone who I may have in anyway been offended by what I have said thus far or by how I have said it. I believe it is my obligation and right to aggressively advocate Reddawg's position, and express my opinion, especially one, such as this, about which I feel so strongly. I would not have been so harsh in response to UnOrthOdOx's question knowing full well that he could not rebut my statement, for example, did I not feel I had to do it in order to properly defend Reddawg and to protect his right to speak freely in these forums.

But, I know what I did is acceptable and forgivable, because I look at the courtrooms of other free democracies, civil societies if you will, and I see that it is acceptable and considered within the bounds of free speech.

So too, are the actions of which Reddawg is accused, whether or not he actually did them. Even at their extreme, the accusations against him, if Reddawg did them, is acceptable in other free democracies and civil societies. Simply look at any political debate in any of these other societies, where competitors on an issue distort the truth of their opponents, knowingly falsely accuse their opponents, and lie about their opponents; and do this knowing they are within the bounds of their right to free speech. Reddawg did none of this, and therefore should also be considered within said boundaries.

However, while it is good to look at other societies for a point of reference, only we can decide what is right for our democracy. So we must look at what our Code of Laws says:

Amendment IV: Bill of Rights
Clause 3: Free speech shall not be abridged unless it violates Apolyton rules.

So the bounds we have set, are Apolyton Rules. This is very specific, not like other democracies where the bounds of free speech are vague and must be decided by the Court. We have no ambiguity, we do not need the Court to interpret what is acceptable free speech. Only the godZ, the enforcers of Apolyton Rules, have the right to decide what did violate and what did not violate Apolyton Rules, and therefore are the only authority having jurisdiction over free speech. Reddawg's remarks were within Apolyton Rules and therefore his right to free speech "can not be abridged".

The Court can not restrict the right to free speech anywhere except where our Code of Laws restricts it, because of how specific the Code is.

The Court should find in favor of Reddawg and dismiss all charges against him.

*************************************************

I would also like to briefly look at the possible consequences my client faces, as listed by Justice notyoueither:

1. Nothing. No action taken beyond the ruling of the Court.

2. Censure. A statement of condemnation from the Court based on the public behaviour of a Minister. Censure could also be a result for private citizens in some cases.

3. Impeachment. In the most severe cases of misconduct the Court may deem that action pursuant to Amendment V may be appropriate and required. I emphasise the words 'severe cases of misconduct' and note that I am speaking in a general manner and not indicating any leanings of the Court as of this point in time regarding this case.

Regarding Censure, the Court has no right to punish any citizen in anyway, the Court Amendment states:

1. Purpose:

The Court is constituted to rule upon: contested disputes involving legal interpretation, validity of polls, violations of the Constitution, or any other legal dispute of national importance.

They are only allowed to rule upon an issue or resolve a dispute. No power was granted to punish. Even in the case of Impeachment, the Court does not dole out any punishment, they only decide if there are grounds to bring the case to the people,and the people decide if the punishment is administered.

Additionally, regarding Impeachment, I appreciate that the Court is not leaning that way, but with all due respect, the Court does not even have the right to consider it in this case; because, as is specified in the Impeachment Amendment, a citizen must bring a case for Impeachment to the Court for the Court to consider Impeachment. No one has done this. Additionally, Reddawg can not be told midway through his trial that he now is up for possible Impeachment, that would not be fair. So, the Court is correct in not leaning that way, and also I state that they can not consider Impeachment in this case.

Furthermore, since Reddawg was within his right to free speech
the Court should find in his favor and dismiss all charges against him, and Reddawg would face no consequences.

***************************************

I would also point out that the things Mr. Orange states are obligations of all Ministers, though they are not currently Law, if he trully believes they should be Law, then he needs to follow the proper proceedings to have the Code of Laws amended. He can not try and get Law changed by the Court. The Court, as we all know, is not a legislative body and is restricted to interpreting Law not writing it.

***************************************

Therefore, in summary, the Court can not enact new laws by creating new requirements for posts in their decision. The Court can not consider Censure as they have no power to Censure or punish citizens. The Court can not consider Impeachment as no case for Impeachment has been brought to them. The Court can not restrict the freedom of speech of any citizen any more than has already been specifically stated in the Code of Laws.

Furthermore, despite all else, Reddawg did not violate the Code of Laws, nor did he make any comments or post any threads that were beyond the bounds of a civilized society, nor did he break Apolyton Rules as enforced by the godZ.

*****************************************

In closing, besides all of this, it would be a dangerous precedent for the Court to set, were they to decide that the lines of free speech must be drawn here. Tomorrow we may all regret it.

I ask the Court to look around at what we have here, the fun, the debating, the analyzing ... everything in the posts. I ask that you enjoy it, appreciate it, and above all else, preserve it.

Remember these few words:

Don't it always seem to go,
that you don't know what you've got till its gone....

The Court should find in favor of Reddawg and dismiss all charges against him.

And the last thing I would like to say is this: Reddawg has been a very active and hardworking member of this democracy. He has spent hours trying to help us make better decisions on the game.
He has asked nothing back, the enjoyment of being a part of this Game is enough. For all of us, I think the enjoyment has been enough.

Reddawg deserved better than this. We all did.

My apologies to the Court and to all, I have meant no disrespect, in fact quite the opposite.

Defense Rests.

[Nimitz]

Jdjdjd you are out of order Mr. Orange was to reply first then you unless he didn't do it by 12 EST tomarrow.

[jdjdjd]

Oops, sorry.

Oh, I thought I had to post between 12-2PM today.

Would you like me to delete and repost tomorrow?

[Nimitz]

I'll leave that up to nye he may deside to leave it and let Mr. Orange go last.

[notyoueither]

Thank you Nimitz.

However, the problem is resolved. Mr. Orange had PMed me that he declined a closing argument. Therefore...

This hearing is closed. Please do not reply.

I will return to post relevant information.

[notyoueither]

Why did we hear this case?

Quite simply, we had an accusation of a breach of the Code of Laws leveled by Reddawg against Mr. Orange. It was not entirely clear that he had completely withdrawn that accusation in the thread. Then, we had an accusation of Ministerial misconduct stemming from the statements in that same thread leveled by Mr. Orange against Reddawg. There were accusations of 2 people having breached the Code of Laws. That deserves a hearing if the accusors cannot come to an understanding and present us with that fact after the complaint is received. No such understanding was ever jointly submitted to us.

Furthermore, some members of the court felt that Reddawg's behaviour may have fallen well short of the standards we all have come to expect of the citizens of this game, let alone Ministers. Some members of the court felt that it would be prudent for us to examine the issue of our behaviour towards one another and to determine if there is in fact a standard, heretofore uncodified, which applies to how we all behave in this game.

We wonder, what if Mr. Orange were not a new citizen? What if Mr. Orange were a newly elected President? What kind of anarchy would result if the enemies of this new President launched accusations of breaches of the Code of Laws based on nothing? What if they persisted? What if when they were shown how baseless their accusations were, they declined to fully apologize and withdraw? What if they then maintained that the acts in question of the President were of no value or were detrimental anyway? What if they maintained that they thought the President was wrong, so they had no responsibility? Should the President and the public have recourse to the court as a remedy against such chicanery? To that last question the court answers, yes.

Be he the greatest noble, or the newest citizen, accusations of wrong doing which are baseless and persistent shall be actionable against the accusor in this court. We have already laid out the possible remedies we feel are appropriate if the issue is severe enough that we agree to hear it.

We fully intend to uphold the right to free speech of all citizens. However, that right does not over ride the rights of others to the peaceful enjoyment of this game. If you seek to harm their reputation, if you seek to besmirch them or their actions, if you seek to disrupt a peaceful gathering of other citizens; if you do these things without just cause or in a malicious manner, then this court will very likely levy the highest sanction available to us.

However, we do not see that Reddawg meant malice with his posts. His expressions were unfortunate, and rooted in ignorance, but they were not sufficient to justify severe sanction. We also acknowledge that Reddawg seemed to withdraw the worst of his accusations, however he never entirely withdrew the barb. We do not feel that censure, beyond that contained in this ruling is warranted.

Reddawg did libel Mr. Orange. This action is not in violation of the Code of Laws. It is however something which we have just ruled upon and enunciated as common law. It is applicable in this case and in future cases. 3 to 1. kring, Nimitz, notyoueither for; Sheik against.

In enunciating this law we cite The Court has the power to rule upon contested disputes involving legal interpretations; validity of polls and elections; violations of the Constitution, law, or Executive orders; and any other dispute of national importance. From which we maintain that Ministerial Conduct, the peaceful enjoyment of the game by all, and the common good as can be expressed in common law are legal interpretations of national importance.

Reddawg did not breach the Code of Laws in regard to false information given to the public. He genuinely believed what he posted. He was wrong. He was in error. Being in error is not against the Code of Laws. The proper place to take up a Minister's errors is at the ballot box. Lies would be another matter. Charge dismissed. 4 to 0. kring, Nimitz, notyoueither, Sheik agree.

Reddawg did not deprive Mr. Orange of his right to free speech. This is a vibrant society. There will be disagreements. Some of them will become mildly warm or warmer. It is the right of every citizen to stand up for his or herself and argue their position within the boundaries laid down by the g0dz and a civil society. At no time did Reddawg attempt to interfere with Mr. Orange's ability to post, therefore at no time did Reddawg interfere with Mr. Orange's right to free speech. Charge dismissed. 4 to 0. kring, Nimitz, notyoueither, Sheik agree.

We levy no sanction against Reddawg regarding the charge of libel. We feel that he has paid enough already. Furthermore, we do not feel the charge warrants the application of a penalty retroactive to a pronouncement of law.

In closing, we feel it is very unfortunate that a Minister of the capabilities of Reddawg found himself caught up in this case. However, we observe that it was fully within his power to extinguish this issue at an early date. An apology, without equivocation would have in all liklihood stemmed this issue near the source. That did not happen. Now we are here, although we all regret where we are.


Additional comments:
jdjdjd argued that as far as restrictions on free speech are concerned the bounds we have set, are Apolyton Rules. This is very specific, not like other democracies where the bounds of free speech are vague and must be decided by the Court. We have no ambiguity, we do not need the Court to interpret what is acceptable free speech.

The court points out that personal attacks are against Apolyton rules. Baseless accusations of wrong doing are personal attacks. The g0dz do not need to notice them. The g0dz do not trouble themselves with all affairs of men; this Court does, so far as they concern the nation of Apolytonia.


jdjdjd argued that regarding Censure, the Court has no right to punish any citizen in anyway... they are only allowed to rule upon an issue or resolve a dispute.

Censure is not punishment. Censure is an expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism. That is surely within the bounds of a Court ruling. Courts are constituted to find fact. Fact may include wrong doing of a serious nature. Wrong doing of a serious nature may deserve an expression of strong disapproval or harch criticism with or without taking the additional step of proceeding to impeachment, a Removal from Office hearing, and a Removal from Office poll for a minister.


jdjdjd argued regarding impeachment that the Court does not even have the right to consider it in this case; because, as is specified in the Impeachment Amendment, a citizen must bring a case for Impeachment to the Court for the Court to consider Impeachment. No one has done this. Additionally, Reddawg can not be told midway through his trial that he now is up for possible Impeachment, that would not be fair.

The court points out that we were outlining all possible consequences for a serious issue, such as one we would hear. We also point out that Mr. Orange, or any other citizen, could have moved at any time for impeachment proceedings and the opening of a Removal from Office hearing. The Court would have reviewed much of this thread as well as one or more additional submissions from the filer and yourself before proceeding to that hearing. Once that hearing is granted, there must be a poll for Removal from Office at the end of the process. It is out of the hands of the Court. We grant that a more narrow set of guidelines applies. An official can be impeached only if they have violated the Code of Laws. We would have to find a violation of the Code of Laws to grant impeachment and proceed to a Removal from Office hearing and hense to a Removal from Office Poll.

Minority opinion regarding the issue of Libel by Sheik. I do believe that Reddawg’s comments where rude and were not within the spirit of the game, however I find that he in no way broke the Code of Laws. Everyone has the right to free speech and that right is only limited by Apolyton rules.