Cross-Party Joint Statement

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

If I may, I'd like to begin by quoting the recent joint statement.

This statement has been approved by the leaders of both the ¡Avant! Coalition and the Progressive Alliance.

When antisocial behaviour is tolerated, the victims of antisocial behavior are effectively excluded. If our patriotic goal is a large and vibrant Talossa, behaviour which drives other people out of participation (or out of citizenship) is unpatriotic. This goes for all forms of harassment, sexually-tinged or otherwise.

Creating a hostile environment in Talossa, where not only the target of the behaviour but others watching it feel icky and alienated, must be sanctioned. The threshold for criminal harassment (El Lexhatx A.7.1.2) is high and should remain high. However, there must be a ladder of escalation. There should be informal, or social, sanctions for such behaviour before it escalates to the criminal level. This is a call for serious enforcement of Wittiquette rule 8: "Don't be a troll or otherwise post in a way that is intended solely to annoy people or infuriate them." (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=125.0)

In previous years, effective moderation of Wittenberg was hampered when the targets of moderation made a claim to either "free speech" or "political bias". In a country like Talossa, where more than half the active population are political figures, it is far too easy to politicise basic requests for human decency. This is why a cross-party political agreement of forces representing a supermajority of Talossans is necessary so that this does not happen again.

Therefore:

1) we support strong moderation of Wittenberg to enforce Wittiquette Rule 8 when it comes to sexual harassment, even when it doesn't rise to a criminal level; we have confidence in the Chancery and its appointed agents to do so fairly, and we will back their decisions.

2) we pledge non-cooperation with and informal boycotts of serial harassers whose behaviour does not (yet) rise to the level of criminal activity; to end when such offenders convincingly change their ways.

3) we will likewise support similar measures following such behaviour on the part of any signatories of this declaration, or any members of their parties or their allies.

4) we will open a broader debate on how to deal with trolling, cruelty, and creating a toxic environment in Talossa.

I have asked for the creation of this board to begin the broader debate on trolling, cruelty, and creating a toxic environment in Talossa.  This is an important issue, since it exists at the intersection of free speech and the safety of the public commons.

Talossa is a mostly online experience, these days, although hopefully that won't always be true.  Accordingly, it is uniquely vulnerable to government intrusion on free speech.  Some of you may know that I am a political activist in my other country, as well, and we run frequent protests, stand-ins, and other activities (especially lately).  It would be impossible to engage in these physical forms of protest in Talossa, since speech is so central to our experience.

But we also cannot allow trolling and toxic behavior to drive away potential immigrants or target current citizens, since both of these groups -- and our public commons -- deserve protection.

D:na Seneschal, do you have an agenda in mind?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

@Sir Lüc , would you make the two respective party leaders that are both involved in this into moderators of the board, please?

[Sir Lüc]

Done!

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Side note: the person whose behavior prompted this whole discussion asked what exactly he did wrong. Obviously, he was aware, but it did give opportunity to write out exactly the kind of thing we're talking about. I'll quote it here to begin with, while @Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC considers how she might like to proceed.

On October 17th, you told another citizen he was cute, along with saying that he was interpreting an unrelated action in a wrong way.  When told that you were being rude, you reiterated that you thought he was cute.  Several people again told you that was inappropriate, and you took it further, saying you thought he was handsome and you'd tell anyone who asked.  You said you'd keep saying whatever you wanted.

Some weeks later, you followed it up by saying that you thought the same young man was "suave and debonair."  You repeated it again when asked to stop.  And you loudly proclaimed you would continue to engage in this behavior, even when told very clearly that your target was deeply uncomfortable with your attentions.

You have presented the following excuses:

• Your target didn't ask you to stop, so you thought it was fine to keep hitting on him.  You were specifically told you your target had said in private it was making him uncomfortable.
• You spoke this way to others.  After you were called out, you complimented several other people rapidly.  Even if it had been the same consistent attention, picking multiple new targets wouldn't make it better.
• There have been other people in Talossa who did worse.  Yes, and why would that be company you're happy about?
• It's fine to talk like this to others, even if it makes them uncomfortable.  No, it's not.

You have been acting like a predator, and you have said that you will not stop.  It is clear that Talossa needs a way to deal with this sort of thing.

Separately: this subforum is a joint project between two political parties to discuss an issue of national importance. Anyone from those parties may participate in any way. Everyone else should please act in a way that minimizes disruption.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Talossa is a mostly online experience, these days, although hopefully that won't always be true.  Accordingly, it is uniquely vulnerable to government intrusion on free speech. Some of you may know that I am a political activist in my other country, as well, and we run frequent protests, stand-ins, and other activities (especially lately).  It would be impossible to engage in these physical forms of protest in Talossa, since speech is so central to our experience.

But we also cannot allow trolling and toxic behavior to drive away potential immigrants or target current citizens, since both of these groups -- and our public commons -- deserve protection.

As I see it, the Baron is coming from "political first principles", based on analogies with how things work with other countries. But a material approach to actual Talossan history would ask - has government action ever been the main threat to freedom of speech in Talossa? An honest answer would say no. It has always been informal, personal harassment which has driven people out of public life.

We know that the archetypal bully in Talossa was King Robert I. But in my experience - with very few exceptions - the terrible things he did to people were never part of his function as King or any other Government minister. He never got posts taken off Wittenberg, never dragged people through the Cort, never pronounced civil disabilities on them. It was all informal, "political" attacks. He would just declare loudly and repeatedly that you were the worst scum in Talossan history, made up lies and distortions about you, declared that any decent Talossan would shun you, and harassed anyone who wouldn't shun you.

And you know what? If you tried to stop him doing this he would yell "FREEDOM OF SPEECH! CENSORSHIP! GOVERNMENT INTRUSION!" This is of course what is happening in the Big Neighbour right now, where "opposing Government censorship" is the slogan used by the current administration to destroy all attempts at fact checking, at distinguishing right from wrong, from preventing pile-ons of verbal abuse that lead to real-world harms.

Moreover, IMHO, the "online nature of Talossa" makes possible Government crackdowns on speech less dangerous. Or, to put it another way - what people can do "informally" through abuse and harassment is much worse than anything the Kingdom could do, via legislation, via lawsuit or via government action. Again, in the late 90s, King Robert I tried to push through a law making it illegal for any Talossan citizen to talk to me, or to any of my political allies. This failed. But what succeeded was the atmosphere of intimidation. He couldn't do jack legally (especially not under the First Covenant) but the threatening atmosphere accomplished his goals informally. Quite like what the current administration in the Big Neighbour does.

Speaking of the "unitary executive theory", let us also stand firmly against confusion about what we mean when we say "the Government". Is the Chancery part of the Government? The Chancery is part of the Kingdom, but is not responsible to the elected Government except in an indirect, checks-and-balances kind of way. It is a very slippery slope to say "government intrusion on free speech" when this could mean either "the Chancery gives someone a week ban for asking someone else if they sleep in the nude" or "the Seneschal just gave you TWELVE WEEKS DUNGEON for asking why she spent the entire Treasury on pie".

In these terms, a worry about "government intrusion" in freedom of speech is much like worry about government intrusion in food safety. Of course abuses are possible, but only when politicised. Some things should be considered technical, rather than political, based on objective fact rather than points in political struggle; and "maintaining public order" (in the sense of a healthy discourse environment) is one of the few explicit exceptions to freedom of expression contained in the First Covenant.

You may remember that when King Robert tried to return in 2019, he admitted that he'd done (in Blade Runner) terms "questionable things", but it was all to defend Talossa. As I said: "it is far too easy to politicise basic requests for human decency". My argument is that the Chancery should be empowered to promote a healthy discourse environment on Wittenberg, that there should never be any (inOrganic) censorship for content except in terms of actual defamation, but moderation for tone is necessary for this to ever be a country where I'd want my children to participate,.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

D:na Seneschal, do you have an agenda in mind?

Well, after I got the previous essay off my chest, I think we're into what I think should be the first part of the agenda, re: defining the terms of debate. And I think we're close to doing so: balancing freedom of speech, expression and political debate with maintaining "public order" in the sense of a healthy discourse environment, as allowed under the First Covenant. I assume we're all agreed that this means in whole or in part establishing norms of discourse that will be enforced by Chancery moderation on Wittenberg - is there anything else?

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

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I believe King Robert I was a figure hard to compare to anyone else.  For much of his reign, Talossa was not a nation of laws.  It was a popularist dictatorship, where many forms of democracy were reproduced... but more when he considered it fun and convenient.  It seems unlikely that anyone will be able to achieve that level of influence.  And if they did, then laws wouldn't really constrain them, just as they never really constrained King Robert.

It is incorrect, in my opinion, to suggest that government regulation of speech is a technical, objective matter.  It is a highly subjective enterprise, except in rare circumstances that aren't in contention.  We already practice most objective forms of regulation, such as a ban on the use of racial slurs, which are discrete and well-known words that can be finitely banned.

But we're talking about the more contentious, less obvious form.  I mean, Breneir has been mildly trolling this summit since we started.  He knows we're discussing his misbehavior, and he knows he was creepy, but he's loudly and repeatedly trying to pretend otherwise.  At what point does he cross into "suspend from Wittenberg" territory?  It's not clear, and I do worry a little bit that anyone could think that this is as easy as setting rules about food safety.  There's a whole spectrum of questionable behavior, and it's just not obvious where to draw lines.

But I don't think it would be productive, all-in-all, to stress about agreeing on these broad points of rhetoric.  Let's start with definitions, and others should feel free to jump in.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Sounds good. I just wanted to make one other thing crystal clear to all watching. Point 2 of the joint statement:

we pledge non-cooperation with and informal boycotts of serial harassers whose behaviour does not (yet) rise to the level of criminal activity; to end when such offenders convincingly change their ways.

is already being enacted both by the Government as a whole and by the political forces making up the Government. Though we don't always stick to it rigidly, we have a norm of refraining from engaging directly with Breneir. I'm not sure whether he's noticed that we only talk to him when we're legally obliged to, eg. in Terpelaziuns, but if we're laying out the situation for a wider audience, probably best to make that crystal clear. Amazingly enough, the term "cordon sanitaire" is already in the Talossan dictionary!

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

The first covenant notwithstanding, it is my personal opinion that we should not need to bend over backwards to protect free speech when trying to set minimum standards of behavior.

In other countries, several conditions attain that make protection of free speech absolutely critical, including;
-Governments are extremely keen to censor speech
-The consequences of the inability to spread true information are vast
-It is difficult even to know who or what is being censored
-Governments are much more powerful than their people and it is difficult to escape their influence

In these regards, the Kingdom of Talossa is much more similar to a bowling league than other countries.

Voluntary associations, in order to accomplish their goals, need to have requirements for participation beyond merely the criminal law. I for one am much more concerned about having a good time around here than I am about perfectly preserving free speech (which, by the way, is pretty well opposite what I would say if this topic came up in the context of the United States).

Take that for what it's worth.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I don't think it's a choice between perfectly preserving free speech and preserving our community.  Instead, it's a balancing act: where do we want to strike the balance?  We currently ban some minimal speech, police others with social norms, and otherwise let people say whatever they want.  That's not sufficient, these days, with the way at least one person is acting.  But just like "perfect free speech" isn't a good point on the spectrum, neither is "no free speech."  We don't want to say that the Secretary of State must approve all posts or something.  We're looking for the right balance, instead.

I presume that we're not talking about criminal penalties, right?  Here, we'd mostly be talking about the terms under which someone would be temporarily suspended from Wittenberg or other Kingdom sites (like our Facebook page) if they've transgressed enough?

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

I presume that we're not talking about criminal penalties, right?  Here, we'd mostly be talking about the terms under which someone would be temporarily suspended from Wittenberg or other Kingdom sites (like our Facebook page) if they've transgressed enough?

I would think that's a good description of what I had in mind. Think of it as a misdemeanor rather than a felony, in a way.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I have to draw the Summit's attention once again to the fact that we already have criminal sanctions for harassment.

"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.

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.

So whatever we're talking about here - Wittenberg moderation and other informal sanctions, has to kick in at a level lower than the definition given in A.7.1.2. We are seriously talking about "giving someone a timeout for being a jerk".

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

BTW, as a late but enthusiastic signatory to the Joint Statement, we should really formally invite @Munditenens Tresplet to participate here.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

BTW, as a late but enthusiastic signatory to the Joint Statement, we should really formally invite @Munditenens Tresplet to participate here.

I agree.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

We are seriously talking about "giving someone a timeout for being a jerk".

Great way to think about it. It would also be very funny to see it legislated this way.