Web
Analytics Made Easy - StatCounter
Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Europeia!
So what the heck is Europeia anyways?

Can I join?

So, I came here representing another region? I do not want to become a citizen. Where should I go?

What offices are there for people to be elected into?

What is there for me to do in Europeia?

That answers most of my immediate questions. What if I have any more?


Username:   Password:
LogoClosed
TC VS THE STATE!!!
Topic Started: May 29 2007, 11:43 AM (370 Views)
Lord Alphanesia
Scum

He is censoring posts, this breaks the constitution and is as such a form of lesser treason.
There are few who deny, at what i do i am the best, for my talents are renowned far and wide. When it comes to surprises in the moonlit night i excel without ever even trying. With the slightest little effort of my ghostlike charms, i have seen grown men give out a shriek. With the wave of my hand, and a well placed bow, i have swept the very bravest of their feet.
Hem and I are your frankensteins monsters -Lethen

I used to have 1332 posts
off
 
Pine
Member Avatar
Knight of the High Templar

Could you please provide evidence to support your accusations?
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Posted Image
off
 
SenatorTC


Objection! I am protecting the interests of Europeia by ensuring that our diplomatic relations are not harmed by immature behaviour. Hardly treason.


Remember who you are taking to court LA, i have a good record in courts :P *reads up on Europeia Law*
Ambassador from The Kingdom of Hampshire
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
off
 
Pine
Member Avatar
Knight of the High Templar

Your objection is noted.

But, before we can move on to extenuating circumstances, there are two things which we must attend to.

1) Whether TC did actually censor posts. If TC admits to it, then no further evidence is necessary.

2) Whether censoring posts is actually treason. After reviewing the laws, I have seen no definition of treason, with the exception of Article 3 of the 14-41 Act, which states "Desertion in the time of war constitutes treason and aiding the enemy," and, besides being irrelevant to this case, may or may not still be legally binding.

If either of these points is proven in the negative, then this TC is innocent.
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Posted Image
off
 
SenatorTC


I would like to reply you honours questions....

Quote:
 
1) Whether TC did actually censor posts. If TC admits to it, then no further evidence is necessary.


Firstly, i would like it noted that no where is it legislated that europeia has its own meaning for the word "censor", therefore one must assume that the definition of the word is based on that of the english language (i.e. is dictionary definition based), therefore let us look at a dictionary definition of the word "censor" (source:Google 2007)...

Quote:
 
a person who is authorized to read publications or correspondence or to watch theatrical performances and suppress in whole or in part anything considered obscene or politically unacceptable


Here, the word has been taken within a persona descriptive role. However still illustrates the main focus of what it means to "censor" someone or something. As indicated by the bolded part of the definition, it is clear to assume that when one censors something it is due to the fact that what has been written/expressed is not acceptable within the realm it is present in.

However, I would also like to bring the courts attention to the events which actually took place.

Upon noticing the said posts with regard to the "egg whipping threads" i promptly closed the threads, thus prohibiting any further posting within them.

I would like like to point out that i did none of the following:

- delete any of the said posts
- edit any of the said posts
- modify, remove or otherwise damage the said posts.
- allowed them to still remain publically visable and on display.

Therefore your honour, i put it to this court, that in a liberal sense of the definition of the word "censor" i did no such thing, as it is clear to see that i did not in any way prohibit the display of the already existing posts. All i did was prevent any further comments being made within those threads in order to protect the integrity of this fine region.


Moving onto your honours second question....

Quote:
 
2) Whether censoring posts is actually treason. After reviewing the laws, I have seen no definition of treason, with the exception of Article 3 of the 14-41 Act, which states "Desertion in the time of war constitutes treason and aiding the enemy," and, besides being irrelevant to this case, may or may not still be legally binding.


It is clear for the courts to see your Honour, that there is no legal ground for this case, there is no act which specifically states that the locking of threads is constituted as a breach of freedom of speech, nor is it anywhere legislated that prohibiting the freedom of speech is an act of Treason.

I therefore put it to the courts that this case has no legal grounding whatsoever, and is a mindless reactionary outburst by the prosecution as a result of their behaviour being objected too.


Your Honour, the defence pushes for a dismissal of this case, based on the afforementioned evidence submitted before the courts.


The Defence rests your honour.
Ambassador from The Kingdom of Hampshire
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
off
 
Lord Alphanesia
Scum

SenatorTC
May 30 2007, 06:58 AM
I would like to reply you honours questions....

Quote:
 
1) Whether TC did actually censor posts. If TC admits to it, then no further evidence is necessary.


Firstly, i would like it noted that no where is it legislated that europeia has its own meaning for the word "censor", therefore one must assume that the definition of the word is based on that of the english language (i.e. is dictionary definition based), therefore let us look at a dictionary definition of the word "censor" (source:Google 2007)...

Quote:
 
a person who is authorized to read publications or correspondence or to watch theatrical performances and suppress in whole or in part anything considered obscene or politically unacceptable


Here, the word has been taken within a persona descriptive role. However still illustrates the main focus of what it means to "censor" someone or something. As indicated by the bolded part of the definition, it is clear to assume that when one censors something it is due to the fact that what has been written/expressed is not acceptable within the realm it is present in.

However, I would also like to bring the courts attention to the events which actually took place.

Upon noticing the said posts with regard to the "egg whipping threads" i promptly closed the threads, thus prohibiting any further posting within them.

I would like like to point out that i did none of the following:

- delete any of the said posts
- edit any of the said posts
- modify, remove or otherwise damage the said posts.
- allowed them to still remain publically visable and on display.

Therefore your honour, i put it to this court, that in a liberal sense of the definition of the word "censor" i did no such thing, as it is clear to see that i did not in any way prohibit the display of the already existing posts. All i did was prevent any further comments being made within those threads in order to protect the integrity of this fine region.


Moving onto your honours second question....

Quote:
 
2) Whether censoring posts is actually treason. After reviewing the laws, I have seen no definition of treason, with the exception of Article 3 of the 14-41 Act, which states "Desertion in the time of war constitutes treason and aiding the enemy," and, besides being irrelevant to this case, may or may not still be legally binding.


It is clear for the courts to see your Honour, that there is no legal ground for this case, there is no act which specifically states that the locking of threads is constituted as a breach of freedom of speech, nor is it anywhere legislated that prohibiting the freedom of speech is an act of Treason.

I therefore put it to the courts that this case has no legal grounding whatsoever, and is a mindless reactionary outburst by the prosecution as a result of their behaviour being objected too.


Your Honour, the defence pushes for a dismissal of this case, based on the afforementioned evidence submitted before the courts.


The Defence rests your honour.

My honourable opponent would have us take a slippery slope.

I would like to site the poem which sums up my case.

First they came for the communists, and i said nothing, because i was not a communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and i said nothing, because i was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and i did nothing, because i was not a unionist.
Then they came for me. And noone was left to speak up for me.


If we allow Censorship to start, it will unavoidably lead to the level of corruption that we witnessed in LKE under the Onder term. We must not allow a replication of such an event in our fair land.

Who is to decide if something is politically unnaceptable? The Censor himself! Noone else has the power to edit posts other than TC and Hem. What if i fidn something unacceptable? Is it to be ignored? Am i to be told to shut up and sit down? Your honour this is a case that will mark the very progression of europeia. It is a case that will effect the path we take. Are we to be corrupt, or free.
prosecution rests.
There are few who deny, at what i do i am the best, for my talents are renowned far and wide. When it comes to surprises in the moonlit night i excel without ever even trying. With the slightest little effort of my ghostlike charms, i have seen grown men give out a shriek. With the wave of my hand, and a well placed bow, i have swept the very bravest of their feet.
Hem and I are your frankensteins monsters -Lethen

I used to have 1332 posts
off
 
Pine
Member Avatar
Knight of the High Templar

As both sides have rested, I shall make my verdict:

The prosecution has given no evidence that censorship has ever occurred, but, in this particular case, that point is immaterial.

The primary factor is that, with the current laws, censorship does not constitute treason. Because of this, I find the defendant innocent.

It has been said that allowing the infringement of free speech on any level, even closing threads, is leading ourselves down a slippery slope. But, in my opinion, convicting someone of a crime they didn't commit, based upon unrelated actions, and without evidence, leads us down a much more perilous one.

Court adjourned.
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Posted Image
off
 
Hintu_Rebels


I protest the judge was corrupt and is unable to take his job well lol :P
off
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Criminal Case Archives · Next Topic »
LogoClosed