Cross-Party Joint Statement

[Tric’hard Lenxheir]

Okay, as a censure I can get behind this but when we actually create a law, with teeth, regarding harassment, sexual or otherwise, I feel that all reference to the person being censured here should be removed. This is something that should apply to all individuals here in Talossa and should not reference any single individual. Furthermore I would suggest striking this part and reserving this for the future law as it really has no place in a censure

*Similarly, anyone else acting in such a way must meet firm consequences in a timely manner.  We encourage the administrator(s) of Wittenberg to be more proactive in general in their efforts to curtail personal or sexual harassment by other citizens.  Heated debate is wonderful, sharp words might be necessary, but persistent and unapologetic harassment needs to be addressed.

The Chancery is hereby further encouraged to appoint an official to whom this power is delegated, considering that the Secretary of State might feel conflicted if they are the personally the target of harassment.*

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

when we actually create a law, with teeth, regarding harassment, sexual or otherwise, I

In fact, we already have one of those.

A.7.1.2. "Harassment" shall mean engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly committing acts which harass, intimidate or distress a person and which serve no legitimate purpose.

...

    7.3.1. Whoever commits physical or sexual violence or threats thereof against any citizen or "judicial person" under Talossan law is guilty of a felony. [58]

        7.3.1.1. "Sexual violence" shall include abuse of trust, where a Talossan citizen over the age of 18 initiates sexual conduct (physically or by means of words or images) with any person under the age of 18; and the citizen over 18 is in a position of supervision, authority or tutelage over said person under 18.[59]

    7.3.2. Whoever commits fraud or harassment against any citizen or "judicial person" under Talossan law is guilty of a serious misdemeanour. Whoever commits threats of the above is guilty of a misdemeanour.

The thing is that what Brenéir did, while repulsive, did not rise to that criminal level.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

I'm still unclear, honestly... Dien was fairly adamant that we should start with a Sense of the Ziu.  I'm amenable to that as a starting point, to see if the clear and open support of a supermajority of the Ziu will make a difference.

My apologies for not producing the draft I promised yet, just been too busy. But, no, I actually more or less agree with the King's position.

I desire the codification of Witt rules in El Lex and make them civil violations (with some kind of statutory pathway to the Cort to appeal what would be an agency decision, but please don't get lost on that right now), paired with a Sense of the Ziu that outlines (yes, suggests) what we believe should be enforcement priorities.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'm still unclear, honestly... Dien was fairly adamant that we should start with a Sense of the Ziu.  I'm amenable to that as a starting point, to see if the clear and open support of a supermajority of the Ziu will make a difference.

My apologies for not producing the draft I promised yet, just been too busy. But, no, I actually more or less agree with the King's position.

I desire the codification of Witt rules in El Lex and makes them civil violations (with some kind of statutory pathway to the Cort to appeal what would be an agency decision, but please don't get lost on that right now), paired with a Sense of the Ziu that outlines (yes, suggests) what we believe should be enforcement priorities.

I wrote up a sense of the Ziu in that regard a while ago: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=4028.msg34371#msg34371

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

If I'm going to move forward with this, I'm going to need some buy-in or interest from other folks.  If someone else wants to take the lead and write something else, fine.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

If I'm going to move forward with this, I'm going to need some buy-in or interest from other folks.  If someone else wants to take the lead and write something else, fine.

I'm happy with your draft as a basis

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I can propose it.  Would you like to cosponsor it?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I desire the codification of Witt rules in El Lex

Someone oughta draft this up, but I've done 3 different drafts today and my drafting finger is tired

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Can I suggest urgency on this? Brenéir is at it again in the Cosa, attempting to destroy the Túischac'h for attempting to moderate him. Once again, accusations of political bias are all that bad actors need, under the current situation, to make themselves unmanageable.

I'll write up a law to give Witt moderation teeth - and maybe we need one to give the Túischac'h and Mençéi powers to impose order? Or is that an OrgLaw amendment?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'll hopper the first step, then.  Can I interpret your like as a cosponsoring?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Absolutely.

• First offense: A written warning / post may be locked or removed
• Second offense: Account locked from posting for 24 hours
• Third offense: Account locked from posting for seven days
• Fourth offense: Account permanently locked from posting except for X boards.

-Txec R

This seems reasonable for the most part -- anyone have any disagreement with this basic approach?

I'm not sure about permanent consequences without judicial proceedings.  Perhaps the fourth offense should be criminalized somehow?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Perhaps the fourth offense should be criminalized somehow?

My first impulse would be to create an offence of "disturbing the peace", which would - among other things - include wilful disregard of Wittiquette and defiance of Witt moderators

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

BTW, you guys may be amused to learn that an ¡Avant! legislator who's a less regular Witt follower asked me what in blazes "this word salad" was supposed to mean, referring to 61RZ17 :D

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

My first impulse would be to create an offence of "disturbing the peace", which would - among other things - include wilful disregard of Wittiquette and defiance of Witt moderators

I would be open to that. The trick will be defining it in a way that doesn't threaten civil liberties.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I would be open to that. The trick will be defining it in a way that doesn't threaten civil liberties.

Perhaps the model should be El Lexh A.7.2.4., the existing Contempt of Court provisions? Witt moderators are the analogy of peace officers.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

7.2.4. Contempt of court. Contempt of court is a serious misdemeanour consisting of intentional:
7.2.4.1. Misconduct in the presence of the court which interferes with a court proceeding or with the administration of justice, or which impairs the respect due the court;
7.2.4.2. Disobedience, resistance or obstruction of the authority, process or order of a court;
7.2.4.3. Refusal as a witness to appear, be sworn or answer a question; or
7.2.4.4. Refusal to produce a record, document or other object.

Yeah, I like it.  Makes sense to me, particularly looking at 7.2.4.1.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

BTW, you guys may be amused to learn that an ¡Avant! legislator who's a less regular Witt follower asked me what in blazes "this word salad" was supposed to mean, referring to 61RZ17 :D

Someday, this stuff will be in history books, and it will be very funny.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

7.2.4. Contempt of court. Contempt of court is a serious misdemeanour consisting of intentional:
7.2.4.1. Misconduct in the presence of the court which interferes with a court proceeding or with the administration of justice, or which impairs the respect due the court;
7.2.4.2. Disobedience, resistance or obstruction of the authority, process or order of a court;
7.2.4.3. Refusal as a witness to appear, be sworn or answer a question; or
7.2.4.4. Refusal to produce a record, document or other object.

Yeah, I like it.  Makes sense to me, particularly looking at 7.2.4.1.

Should also point out Lexh.A.7.3.2: "Whoever commits fraud or harassment against any citizen or "judicial person" under Talossan law is guilty of a serious misdemeanour. Whoever commits threats of the above is guilty of a misdemeanour." (emphasis not added by myself)

[King Txec]

Perhaps the model should be El Lexh A.7.2.4., the existing Contempt of Court provisions? Witt moderators are the analogy of peace officers.

I had the concept a while back and even mentioned it of establishing the role of some form of law enforcement officer to enforce Wittiquette. Perhaps it is worth looking in to establishing a kind of peace officer role for a Witt moderator with some judicial authority analogous to law enforcement officers. This Witt cop, for lack of a better term, could work under the auspices of the A-X to enforce Witt, especially when it comes to more severe enforcement such as long term bans (think of being jailed while awaiting trial). Just some ideas at 3:44 AM but maybe worth considering?

-Txec R

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Do we think the whole kit and kaboodle of our harassment laws should be refined with an eye towards this reform, or do we want to move forward with a new specific charge intended for this use-case?  I'd lean towards the latter, but I'm open to either possibility.