The Court of Apolytonia is in Session: Case 5

[notyoueither]

jdjdjd, I grant you the consideration that that was a cross post and you had not seen my post previous to this.

Your motion is being considered by the court and I will post again on that topic this evening. Now...

The court is in recess. Do not post.

[notyoueither]

Summary Judgement

Mr. Orange did not cheat. Mr. Orange maintains this fact, the Respondents do not contest this fact, and none of the members of the Court find any reason to decide otherwise.

3 to 0. Kramerman, Nimitz, notyoueither agree.


/Edited ruling line

[notyoueither]

Summary Judgement

Mr. Orange enjoys the status of a citizen of the Nation of Apolytonia. He posted properly in the Join Thread. We are unaware of him posting again in that thread. As for any statements he may have made as to 'not participating', they do not negate his right as a citizen to a full hearing of his grievance before this Court.

3 to 0. Kramerman, Nimitz, notyoueither agree.


/Edited ruling line

[notyoueither]

The rest of the motion is dismissed. The hearing will continue with the second issue.

The consensus of the court is that for Reddawg to have done anything wrong, what he did must violate the Code of Laws or the bounds of a civil society in a significant manner. Significant enough for the seriousness of his actions to overcome his right to free speech.

3 to 0. Kramerman, Nimitz, notyoueither agree.


/Edited ruling line

[notyoueither]

The hearing will continue now to examine the 2nd issue; that being 'did Reddawg do any wrong in his responses in Mr. Orange's thread' and to refine that, was the wrong of a serious enough nature to outway Reddawg's right to free speech?

/Edit.

You may proceed with your opening argument Mr. Orange. Once you state that you are finished jdjdjd may post his opening response.

I am opening this up a little. Neither Mr. Orange, nor jdjdjd need wait for my invitation to post so long as they alternate in their posts and each waits until the other has stated that he is finished.

Please be respectful of each other and the court. I would not like to find 3 or 10 unanswered posts that go on at length on the same theme. It is far easier for us to judge an issue if we do not go to sleep while reading the arguments.

2nd Edit/ No one else should be posting in this thread prior to my invitaion. Other justices may intervene as they see fit. That is their place and their role.

[Mr. Orange]

Thank you, your Honor.

I apologize for any delay.

***
I have no problem with one citizen making a statement toward another. Questioning the validly of particular information is a right of free speech given to us by our Constitution. Nor do I see any problems in displaying faults in said information if it has been proven through factual representation to be "wrong".

But there was no clear indication that Reddawg had any specific questions to ask. What had been posted were inaccurate insinuations, made by a standing member of government about the integrity of a presentation, who at no time made any distinction of acting as an independent citizen.

How is a citizen supposed to know if an elected official is acting under government auspices or on their own volition without documentation within the post? All that was documented was the signature “Minister of the Economy”.

That is why Reddawg made those allegations without acknowledging his posts were being made as an independent citizen. That is why he made the allegations without specific references to the MilCalc. He indignantly posted from a position of authority. From what authority? His elected position in government.

Reddawg never made any reference to having looked at said information to make any of his statements. But the information was readily available. If someone knows they have access to information that could make a statement valid, but choose not to use that information, making that statement false, it is a premeditative choice.

By having a choice to make those false statements, without any indication the statements were being made as an independent citizen, Reddawg as a member of government, knowingly gave false information to other citizens. A violation to free speech and crime under our Constitution.

***
I have completed my statement

[jdjdjd]

Esteemed Members of The Court,

Before I go on, I must point out that since the Original Code of Laws is still in place, and was in place at the time of this incident, I am relying on those in all my responses. Please let me know if you feel otherwise.

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

Now on to the matter at hand.

The question to discuss now is:

did Reddawg do anything wrong, i.e., did it violate the Code of Laws or the bounds of a civil society in a significant manner? Significant enough for the seriousness of his actions to overcome his right to free speech.

The answer is an emphatic: No!

Mr. Orange refers to the Bill of Rights, Amendment IV Clause 7, which states:

The government may not knowingly hide information or give false information to the people.

He has gone to great lengths to state that Reddawg was acting in his official capacity as Minister of the Economy and that Reddawg did provide false information to the people while acting as a representative of the Government. He implies that any Minister, Justice or Government Official does act as a Government representative every time they post, regardless of what that post entails.

Thus, Government Officials are not allowed to joke, critique, disagree, opine, analyze, etc., without being scrutinized for every iota of information they write. That was not the intent of that Clause. Furthermore, it would be a terrible burden to place on those people who volunteer their time as Government Officials without compensation in a Game, to be sure that every time they made a post that they were not wrong, misinformed, opinionated, critical, disagreeable, and so on, on a topic; for fear that some member of the Game may sue them.

It is our opinion that Reddawg was not acting in an official capacity because the discussion did not deal with the Economy, and the duties of the Minister of the Economy as explained in Amendment I - Minister of the Economy (which I will not quote here due to its length).

Furthermore, Clause 7 does not apply, because it states that the act must be known to be false by the government at the time.
Everything Reddawg wrote at the time he wrote it, in his opinion, was true. And Reddawg never said "Mr. Orange cheated", knowing full well Mr. Orange did not cheat.

Please note: Reddawg never did say Mr. Orange cheated, he merely pointed out that a certain way of getting applicable data would have been cheating, not that Mr. Orange cheated.

Therefore, based on the fact that Reddawg was not acting in his capacity as Minister of the Economy, and that he did not knowingly make false statements; he did not violate Clause 7 of the Bill of Rights Amendment.

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

Now, I would like to specifically address this comment by Mr. Orange

No elected official has the power to “bend” the rules. An official is bound by the rules to be accurate when posting. If they are not informed about a topic, they need to become so before posting any comments that would be considered disinformation under said law, unless they specifically state they are posting as a citizen and not as an elected official, which Reddawg made no attempt to do.

First, where in the Code of Laws does it state that a Minister must distinguish his posts, i.e. those as an official, and those not as an official? No where.

Second, where in the Code of Laws does it say that a government official is bound by the rules to be accurate? No where.

I put it to the members of the Court, are you accurate with every post? Are you fully informed every time you post? Well, if you find in favor of Mr. Orange, you darn well better be from now on, else you are at risk of being sued for spreading "disinformation".

There is nothing in the Code of Laws saying that you must state whether or not you are acting as a Government Official and that all statements must be accurate and made with full review of the facts, for one reason:

It would be overburdensome and impracticable.

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

We would also like to address the issue presented by Mr. Orange that Reddawg did damage his reputation. We know of no such damage. Other posters in the thread, including Meshelic, UnOrthOdOx, and adaMada; esteemed members of the community, did support and praise the analysis Mr. Orange provided. They did this after reviewing the alleged damaging remarks made by Reddawg.

Furthermore, how do we know the MiCalc is all that Mr. Orange says it is? I am no expert, but perhaps Reddawg is correctly criticizing the MiCalc. Isn't that possible? Until someone can prove that Reddawg knowingly falsely criticized the MiCalc, then this case should be decided in Reddawg's favor.

Having said that, please also consider this...the Code of Laws does not discuss slander, libel or damage to reputation; and therefore, Reddawg did not violate the Law. In fact, he was using his right to free speech as stated in the Bill of Rights, Amendment IV Clause 3. Reddawg has the right to state he disagrees with the statistics provided, just as Meshelic, UnOrthOdOx, and adaMada had the right to agree. Reddawg's right to free speech are only limited by the Rules of Apolyton and the Code of Laws. Neither were violated.

It would be great to live in a world where we all agree all the time.....wait, no it wouldn't.

So, it is our opinion that Mr. Orange sustained no damage, and even if he did, there is nothing in the Code of Laws governing slander, liable or damage to reputation. Additionally, there is nothing to prove that Reddawg's criticism of the MiCalc is wrong. Again, Reddawg broke no Laws and therefore the case should be decided in his favor.

One last matter here is what could the Court do in this case? What punishment? What compensation? There is nothing provided for in the Code of Laws empowering the Court in this manner. The case should be dismissed for not only is there no violation and no damages, but there is no possible remedy.

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

Finally, the actions of Reddawg in no way prevented Mr. Orange from speaking freely. Mr. Orange continued to post, and could continue to post. It is difficult to be criticized, but as the saying goes:

That which does not kill me only makes me stronger

Reddawg is entitled to his free speech, even if it is in disagreement with what Mr. Orange states. Even if his tone may be considered by Mr. Orange to be unpleasant. Could you imagine the number of cases the Court would have had to decide between Sir Ralph and Spiffor, were it to be that every time either man talked to the other in an unpleasant manner they sued?!

I beleive it was Thomas Payne, the great defense lawyer, (or maybe it was Oliver Douglas from Green Acres) who said (I paraphrase)

I may not agree with what you're saying, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it.

We all need to heed this.

Reddawg did nothing wrong he excercised his right to free speech and he did not break Apolyton Rules in his post nor the Code of Laws of Apolytonia. Nor did he over step the bounds of a civil society in a significant manner. Therefore, this case should be decided in Reddawg's favor.

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

In summary, it is our opinion that Reddawg did not violate the Code of Laws in any way. Also, what Reddawg said and the tone he used, did not over step the bounds of a civil society. I agree lines should be drawn, but freedom of speech would be stifled if the line was drawn here.

Thank you and I am sorry for going on so long.

I am done.

Edited for spelling/grammar, and correcting to Thomas Payne. Thanks.

[notyoueither]

Thank you both for the well stated arguments.

Mr. Orange, you may respond to jdjdjd's argument in rebuttal. jdjdjd may then reply with his rebuttal if he so wishes. Note that rebuttal is not mandatory. It is your choice.

Some members of the public have questions pending. Perhaps we will reach them this evening. I would like everyone to wait until Mr. Orange has posted, and jdjdjd has responded. I will then consider opening the thread to questions from the public.

[Mr. Orange]

Thank you, your Honor.

*****

By jdjdjd:

Everything Reddawg wrote at the time he wrote it, in his opinion, was true.

If this were a set of disparaging statements between two citizens, it would be considered legal. At no time does a citizen not have the right to post. But there is a law that defines a certain parameter of free speech for an elected official; they must be accurate to their knowledge. It does not state a government official has to be accurate only in deference to their elected position.

By jdjdjd:

There is nothing in the Code of Laws saying that you must state whether or not you are acting as a Government Official and that all statements must be accurate and made with full review of the facts, for one reason:

It would be overburdensome and impracticable.

If making an argument on speculation, that might violate the rule, the beginning of any post could have been as simple as * “As a citizen…” *.

Reddawg never made any correlation he was acting as a citizen his own behalf. And under the law, he is bound to the rules of being an elected official. In that capacity, he was bound by law to be accurate. If the information in question was not available, it would leave room for speculation. But all the resources were available to be accurate and still there was no documentation that shows the information was reviewed. It was a premeditative choice * not * review the information.

By adaMada:

According to one of the calculators on his site (this just being for the Casulty Calculator, but I'd think it'd be similar for all), all the information the calculator uses can be found in the Military and Demographic advisor screens. Anything input into a Green cell is a hard number from the game; anything in a yellow cell is a calculation from the hard data; and anything in a red cell is approximations from the yellow squares.

This is documentation of proof that adaMada took the time to view said information. Where is Reddawg’s?

By Reddawg:

I had assumed on reading the stats that you were working off real data and not conjectures or estimates.

as·sump·tion n
1. something that is believed to be true without proof
2. believing something to be true without proof

Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation.

By Mr. Orange:

...a set of formulas were devised to gauge a Civ's relative military strength. Obviously, once calculated, they were compared to make this assesment.

The MilCalc does not make statistics, it created data to make statistics. The graphic comparison of that data is what Reddawg was using to argue about the integrity of calculations. But the calculations are done within the MilCalc. Again, where is the evidence of reviewing the MilCalc?

Everyone was new once, looking for a voice to participate within the community. Upon arriving, a new citizen looks to those who have accumulated a lot of posts or have been elected to government as an anchor of what is positive decorum within the community. They are our leaders and to a certain extend enjoy a degree of popularity from their commitment to the game. But the one * major * difference between an old soul and an elected official is that elected officials are duty bound to be accurate.

Reddawg presented no reference as acting as an independent citizen, made no attempt to review the information available and made accusations, while under the auspices of government, that were false and act that is in violation of our rules. Is this positive? No. And what example does it show to the rest of the community about proper decorum? None.

*****

I have completed my rebuttal.

[jdjdjd]

Justices,

I will be brief.

A member of the government is not bound by law to be accurate.

A member of the government is not bound by law to state in their posts they are acting on official or private business.

Reddawg did not knowingly provide false information.

Failure to be fully informed is not a vioaltion of the Code of Laws.

Reddawg does not need to prove he was fully informed.

There is no proof Reddawg was not fully informed or was wrong in his statements.

Making assumptions (please see Mr. Orange's definition above if you do not know the meaning of this word) is not a violation of the Code of Laws, and in fact assumptions are made everyday, by all people including Mr. Orange, in his MiCalc.

Elected Officials and long time members are not bound by law to be roll models in anyway.

No law has been violated, no damages have been sustained, no remedy is allowed under the law - the case should be decided in Reddawg's favor.

We again ask for immediate dismissal of all remaining charges.

Thank you.

/EDIT: My rebuttal is complete:

[notyoueither]

Thank you both.

I now invite members of the public to ask questions. Please be patient for their answers, and avoid debating with the litigants. You may ask. They will each answer if appropriate.

[Togas]

May it please the court.

My questions are for Mr. Orange.

Mr Orange, you stated that:

Originally posted by Mr. Orange
If this were a set of disparaging statements between two citizens, it would be considered legal. At no time does a citizen not have the right to post. But there is a law that defines a certain parameter of free speech for an elected official; they must be accurate to their knowledge. It does not state a government official has to be accurate only in deference to their elected position.

Firstly, you seem to agree that citizens can criticize and insult each other, make incorrect statements against each other, but then say that Elected officials cannot? Are you saying that Elected Officials lose their right to free speech or have lesser rights than citizens?

Are you saying that the prohibition from an elected official to knowingly give false information means that all elected officials are required to always be fully informed?

Hypothetically, if I told a citizen that his trade proposal scheme was "a waste of time and wouldn't be worth the trouble" but I haven't fully researched his proposal, would I be breaking the law, in your opinion?

And lastly:
If Reddawg did break the law, what should the Court do about it?

Thank you.

--Togas

[adaMada]

Permission to speak? (Not sure if it's still needed, but the top post has it in, so thought I'd be safe ).

-- adaMada

[Sheik]

Thank you for asking.
You may post your question.

[UnOrthOdOx]

I also request permission to address the court.