Cross-Party Joint Statement

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I would suggest that a good procedure would be setting up a Bureau of Public Safety in the Chancery.  The Secretary of State can either appoint someone to the office, if they wish, or perform it themselves.  The decision of the Public Safety Officer could be appealed to the Secretary of State or His Majesty the king.  I think that the king is a perfect person for this role, since he's insulated from politics and he's personally very even-tempered.  Anyone who is inappropriate or cruel enough to upset both the Chancery and the throne probably deserves their fate.

I also agree entirely that anyone barred from Witt generally would still need to be able to access the Ziu boards, if they are a member of that body.  They do not need to access the Cort boards, since they can file a petition by email and the Cort can then order their presence (this is established in past precedent).

Of course, we still need to discuss suggested guidelines and penalties (what should be sanctioned, what the sanctions should be, etc), but how would people feel about that procedure?

By the way: I hereby formally invite His Majesty to participate in these discussions.

[King Txec]

By the way: I hereby formally invite His Majesty to participate in these discussions.

Thank you Baron,

As I told the Seneschal, if I had anything constructive to add I would do so, but only after deep consideration.

-Txec R

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I like the idea of a Committee Bureau of Public Safety

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

I like the idea of a Committee Bureau of Public Safety

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Yes, that is a better name! Let's call it the Committee of Public Safety instead. I like the ironic touch.

[Bråneu Excelsio, UrN]

I have also asked two recent victims of harassment, @Sir Lüc and @Bråneu Excelsio, UrN to give formal statements.

The health of Talossa depends on our ability to attract and retain new citizens. We cannot afford to let one person repeatedly disrupt our environment with impunity.
Talossa is a community. And no community can survive, much less grow, if its environment is toxic or discouraging.

Persistent antagonism and manipulative behavior from one individual have made our public spaces tense and unpleasant in the past. Protecting this behavior for the sake of avoiding precedent sends a louder message than any action would. The real precedent we should fear is allowing this to continue unchecked.
This is the problem we are facing. The good news is: at least now we're facing it together. Talossa needs tools to remove disruptive individuals from public spaces; not out of spite, but to protect the integrity of the community. So yeah, we also support the CPS.

I know policy may not solve everything, but ignoring the problem ensures it will grow. If we care about welcoming new citizens, then giving ourselves better tools to maintain a healthy civic environment is not only responsible, it's necessary.

The Kingdom of Talossa is not just an old fantasy or experiment; it's a story that works because we agree to treat each other as co-authors and perhaps now is the moment to consider what kind of tone we want our story to carry.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Thanks for that, Bråneu. What happened to you was IMHO one of the big tragedies in Talossan political history, and I'm glad you were able to come back from it.

Now to make sure it happens to no-one else.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Thank you. Bran.

So, folks, any thoughts on my proposal about the procedure: a designated officer from the Chancery, and appeal to the Secretary of State or the king? If we agree on that, we can move to standards of behavior and recommended sanctions.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

I want some kind of path to judicial review eventually. I am fine with an initial appeal to the SoS from a decision of a first level Chancery official.

I am fine with immediate restrictions pending appeal. I think the restrictions should be no greater than an initial period of 30 days for a first level enforcer, with the SoS being able to extend or restrict indefinitely.

I think the King (or another party) should serve in the place of the SoS only if the SoS is a party to the harassment.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Well, if it was an administrative decision, anyone could still sue. Just because there's no specific assigned role for the judiciary doesn't mean that citizens wouldn't still have the usual recourse of a lawsuit.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

What would you suggest the legal basis of judicial review of - let's take a hypothetical - a moderator's decision to remove a post for harassment be, Dien?

As far as I can see, Title J of El Lexhatx and the First Covenant of Rights and Freedoms are already adequate for our purposes.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

I disagree that just anyone could sue. This isn't only our public forum, but it is government owned. In theory, the government could simply make a case that as a government owned board, they can do whatever they want outside of review. (Making a case similar to government speech on license plates, for example.) In other words, in the absence of express text otherwise, who knows whether the Cort wouldn't just toss out the suit without reaching the merits?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with one line in the law that says "Appeals of the decisions of the SoS may be taken to the Cort, who will conduct a de novo review of the case and/or determine whether the SoS' actions were an appropriate exercise of discretion, and properly weighed the restricted citizen's right to free speech versus the victim's right to be free of harassment."

I mean, is there a Talossan Administrative Procedure Act?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I disagree that just anyone could sue. This isn't only our public forum, but it is government owned. In theory, the government could simply make a case that as a government owned board, they can do whatever they want outside of review.

It's precisely because it is a government-run forum (under Title J) that moderators have to provide free speech protections under the First Covenant. If Witt were a private forum no-one could tell the moderators to do anything they didn't want to.

Again, I'd have to ask you what you would envisage the legal substance of "appeals" to the judiciary as being.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

I disagree that just anyone could sue. This isn't only our public forum, but it is government owned. In theory, the government could simply make a case that as a government owned board, they can do whatever they want outside of review.

It's precisely because it is a government-run forum (under Title J) that moderators have to provide free speech protections under the First Covenant. If Witt were a private forum no-one could tell the moderators to do anything they didn't want to.

The government could make the case that any text written on its government owned board could be detrimental to the government by attributing the speech to it. Therefore they have the ability to restrict or remove anything, without ensuring First Covenant protections, because otherwise it would be the government's right to speech that is infringed.

This is why we see governments being allowed to restrict custom license plates like "FART123" or the like.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I think we're getting off track here, because - as far as I understand @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu - he's not actually talking about changing the law, but about setting new Wittenberg administration policy within existing law? Are you saying you also want amendments of some kind to Title J of El Lexhatx?

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Even to set appeals to the SoS, we'd need some change to existing law.

I think we need to codify the rules of Witt within law if we're going to exercise any government enforcement powers. Why couldn't Witt rules just be changed later at the whim of one person otherwise? This may never have been done before because Witt was hosted privately; but this is no longer the case.

I circle back to my original thoughts. We can use Sense of the Ziu to express our priority desires, but we still need to update our existing law.

Codify Witt rules
Codify appeal procedures
Sense of the Ziu expressing enforcement priorities

Because without law change, strong, clear, no room for gray area law change, I'm not sure I really understand the point of the summit is. I thought the point was to strengthen our position and use law to actually prevent future harassment.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

What we're talking about here is kind of the equivalent of being temporarily removed from a public space for being drunk and disorderly, a public nuisance, or engaging in other behaviors that make it impossible for other people to be in that public space. Anyone who feels like the penalty was unfairly applied, and whose appeal to the King was denied, would have extremely clear grounds to sue based on their rights to free assembly and free speech, which can only be abridged on the grounds of public order.

In my opinion, we don't want to make the judiciary part of the general appeals process because it's honestly not even fair to anyone who might be sanctioned. The judiciary is famously the slowest part of our government. That's not a knock on them, since they're chosen for wisdom and probity, but it would be better to have the appeal go to someone who is also level-headed but much more present.

Legally, I think it's also very clear that no one can be permanently banned at all. If we want that to be an option, we're going to have to invent a new crime and make an amendment about it. I'm not in favor. For me, we're just talking about temporary suspensions.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I do think we are probably going to have to codify this into law, by the way, but it won't be a crime. It will be specific definitions of public order, and administrative procedures by which people can be temporarily restricted from the public square in order to preserve that public order.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Legally, I think it's also very clear that no one can be permanently banned at all. If we want that to be an option, we're going to have to invent a new crime and make an amendment about it. I'm not in favor. For me, we're just talking about temporary suspensions.

Temporary suspensions from Wittenberg for 1 year maximum are already authorised for serious misdemeanors (El Lexhatx A.4.1.7), and harassment under the law is a serious misdemeanour. So what we're looking for is stuff *under* that threshold.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I do think we are probably going to have to codify this into law, by the way, but it won't be a crime. It will be specific definitions of public order, and administrative procedures by which people can be temporarily restricted from the public square in order to preserve that public order.

I'm going to have to ask this again.

- Is there any problem with the rules set under Wittiquette as it stands?
- Is there any question about the right of Chancery staff under Title J of El Lexhatx to enforce Wittiquette as it is currently written?