Would self-slander be criminalised if this bill were to pass?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TalossaWiki has been a project of the Government from the first day.  It says so explicitly on the "TalossaWiki: About" linked at the bottom of every page, and it has since June of 2012, when we got it set up.

I'm not sure I'm entirely sold on the bill, generally.  But I think we can definitely do something along these lines.  And since it's become so important to us, we probably want to put some protection on it, generally.  þerxh, would you be willing to wait on sending it to the CRL?  Sorry, I know you were ready to go with it, and I should have said something earlier, but there's been a lot going on.

I've deleted a previous post both for tone, and because I got some basic facts wrong.

I cannot see any way that I can support a bill that criminalises Wiki edits. Attacks on Wikipedia and its editing community are the stock in trade of authoritarians in other countries, who want to destroy collaborative knowledge creation. We will not have this in Talossa.

Quite aside from that, I don't think "raise a case to the Court of Justice" actually means anything. What remedy would our Courts have for someone making a Wiki edit that a Government minister considers obnoxious? Banishment? If this is a matter of individual harassment or disturbing the peace, there is already a law against that (El Lexh A.7.2.11 and A.7.3.2).

As I mentioned in the post above, however, there does seem to be legal ambiguity over who administers Talossawiki. I'm actually not fussed over whether it's the Government or the Chancery, but someone has to do it - and we probably need to make it unambiguous that they have the power to revert troll edits and ban repeat offenders. We enacted a law to remove such an ambiguity in the previous Cosa.

If this bill is rewritten to (a) make responsibility for administering Talossawiki unambiguous; (b) explicitly give admins/moderators of TalossaWiki authority to revert troll edits and ban repeat offenders, on the same line as the Consequences Act; (c) delete the noxious attempt to bring down the force of the Law on Wiki editors, it might prove useful.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Yesterday at 02:28:07 PManother weakness it shows is that s.4 is entirely in the passive voice - it doesn't say who administers Talossawiki.

I noticed that but it really wasn't my place to change the wording and indeed probably not even my place to edit the grammar, but the English teacher in me couldn't resist so I hope the MC didn't mind.

-Txec R

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 21, 2025, 01:34:28 PMI'm not familiar with any provision transferring administration of the wiki to the Chancery.  I'm fairly sure that it's a Propaganda or Technology issue, unless I missed a significant legal change.

The Government has never, to my knowledge, administered TalossaWiki. The Government is in charge of "official pages", but TalossaWiki has always been administered by the Chancery not by the Government. There has been no legal change because the Government has never done this, and it has been the Chancery that keeps it ticking on in the background.

Actually, I'm quite surprised to note that apparently there is no legal establishment for TalossaWiki - I don't even know who set it up! Quite apart from the noxious and authoritarian s.7 of this bill, another weakness it shows is that s.4 is entirely in the passive voice - it doesn't say who administers Talossawiki.

If the Government does want to end the ambiguity and place TalossaWiki administration within its competences, this might be a good thing - if it means setting up effective moderation and surveillance, thus removing any excuse for Government Ministers to take citizens to court for disfavored speech.

Thanks your Majesty, too many mistakes indeed

Quote from: Françal I. Lux on Yesterday at 09:13:10 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 15, 2026, 11:02:00 PMWhat did you think of the first episode, Francal?

I thought it was good. It's definitely write by a new generation of writers which I'm ok with. I didn't realize it was set in the 32nd century which will take some getting used to.

I haven't gotten the names down yet but the Klingon medic-in-training is an instant favorite! A lot of history has happened by this point in the timeline and I'm curious to see how the galaxy will be this far into the future. I can definitely see this as their attempt to attract a younger audience and I can easily see the show slowly becoming more complex and epic as it unfolds.

Also love Paul and Holly's characters!

What about you?

I am going to let a few episodes build up and then binge it but am hopeful. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 08:52:44 AMCertainly.  Thank you for sending the chain.

Thank you!

WHEREAS our TalossaWiki media contains many pages which are supposed to neutrally and factually detail many aspects of Talossa and its activity, and should not contain political attacks, nor harassing statements;

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that Article "J. Wittenberg" of the Statutory Law is renamed "J. Wittenberg and TalossaWiki", and is amended by the addition of the following articles:

4. A wiki tool, called "TalossaWiki" is made available to all Talossan citizens, allowing them to create and enrich pages related to all aspects of our kingdom, including entities such as the State, the Government, the Provinces, culture, politics, the law, and pages providing biographies of Talossan citizens,
5. The update of all Wiki pages is made voluntarily by citizens of Talossa.
6. The sections of TalossaWiki which provide vital information must remain neutral and objective and shall report facts and not opinions. Inclusion of opinions should be limited to political party members on their specific political party pages, or to citizens on their own personal citizen pages.
7. Any citizen or group of citizen who feels attacked or insulted by a comment on any Wiki page can raise a case to the Court of Justice, after unsuccessful attempts to solve the matter by discussion.

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on December 21, 2025, 11:49:47 AMWHEREAS our TalossaWiki media contains may pages which are supposed to neutrally and factually detail many aspects of Talossa and its activity, and should not contain political attacks nor harassing statements;

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that Article "J. Wittenberg" of the Statutory Law is renamed "J. Wittenberg and TalossaWiki", and is amended by the addition of the following articles:

4. A  Wiki tool, called "TalossaWiki" is made available to all Talossan Citizens, allowing these to create and enrich pages related to all aspects of our Kingdom, be it the State, the Government, the Provinces, the culture, the politics, the Law, and also pages provided biography of Talossan Citizens,
5. The update of all Wiki pages is made volunteerely by Citizens
6. The part of TalossaWiki providing informations must remain neutral and objective and shall report facts and not opinions. Inclusion of opinions should be limited to party members on their specific Polical Parties pages, or to citizens on their own personal Citizen pages
7. Any citizen or group of citizen who feels attacked or insulted by a comment on any the Wiki page can raise a case to the Court of Justice, after unsucessful attempts to solve the matter by discussion

Notwithstanding the several grammatical errors which I presume would be fixed before Clarking, clause 7 is way too vague. Feeling attacked or insulted should never be grounds for a criminal case. Insults occur all the time, so should any insult anywhere be grounds for a criminal case? I think that terms such as libel would be more effective and much more in line with Organic law (not to mention more easily defined by a Cort or legal representative).

Also, I've bolded the grammar errors so they can be fixed (I also know that English is not your first language so errors are completely understandable). The English teacher in me couldn't help notice. For example, only proper nouns should be capitalized, and words like "citizen" and "political party" are not proper nouns. Later today, if you would like, I can make the edits for you and repost the bill in this thread.

-Txec R