Expediting the development of our legal system

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":2072tbhe][his aspect of Ashcroft's proposals is an unacceptable invasion of privacy. [/quote:2072tbhe]

Patroklus, why don't you address my detailed and careful arguments above on exactly why the sort of privacy that you are contending for is not worthwhile? Your whole claim rests on that, and yet you seem unwilling to defend it. A matter of principle is at stake, and you are reluctant to bring forth reason in support of your principle, or to argue against mine. Why is that?

[quote:2072tbhe]To draw a real life analogy, it's as if we were to consent that every conversation we have on the street or over the phone could be recorded by another party for the purposes of a trial. I wouldn't accept those terms as part of a RL community and I don't see why I should here.[/quote:2072tbhe]

The true real-life anology is of the policeman with the notebook that I gave above, or simply of the person with the very accurate memory. Why don't you address that?

[quote:2072tbhe]In RL people are rightly defensive of their privacy; some people encrypt their emails (and defend the right to do so against government interference) because they don't want others to read their private conversation. Some people protest against wiretapping to intercept their private telephone calls. One of the arguments used against this defence of privacy is that 'they have nothing to fear if they're not doing wrong'. I fear that Ashcroft's respone to my defence of my privacy sounds pretty similar.[/quote:2072tbhe]

Then find some genuine reasons to argue against it, in the particular form that I have argued it, if you have any, and post them here. If you have none, then you cannot well claim that you have a reason for others to agree with you, and to call upon them to support what you ask them to support.

[quote:2072tbhe]I have yet to see a convincing reason why this aspect of the proposal is seen as being essential given that chat logs can so easily be forged. The central point against this is that even if chat logs are produced they do not get the court any closer to the actual words that were used unless both parties accept that they are a true record. [/quote:2072tbhe]

I have given detailed reasons above as to exactly why that argument, which you are merely restating now from your two previous posts on the matter, does not hold. Why have you not addressed those arguments, but simply re-staated your original position? This is not getting us any further. If you cannot muster arguments in favour of your contention, then you cannot expect to persuade people who do not already agree that you are right. Indeed, if you do not have any reasons to reject my argument, why do even you continue to believe what you do?

[quote:2072tbhe]Ashcroft replies:
[quote:2072tbhe]There will no doubt be many cases where parties do not dispute what was said per se, but might nonetheless wish, if the provision that I suggest was not enacted, to conceal what they admit is the truth from the courts. What advantage is there in those cases of permitting such people to do so? [/quote:2072tbhe]
What advantage is there in admitting chat logs in court if one party (which wants to conceal the truth from the court) can simply assert that it is a forgery? The court is then left with a case of 'he said, she said' and is no nearer the truth.[/quote:2072tbhe]

As stated above, this simply ignores the great efforts to which I went in the last post in explaining, in much detail, precisely why there is an advantage - a very great advantage indeed - in courts receiving that sort of evidence. Why have you entirely ignored all of that reasoning? It is a complete answer to the point that you make above, which is merely a restatement of the point that you made in the previous post, to which the arguments to which I refer were a response.

[quote:2072tbhe]Actually I assume nothing of the sort . It's an open question as to whether the court could usefully reach a decision in the example I gave. I presented it in order to make the point that chat logs are of limited use and that Ashcroft's proposals ask us to give up too much for too little.[/quote:2072tbhe]

Yet you have presented no argument against against my detailed arguments above about just why, far from being of "little use", they would be likely to be of vital importance in a significant number of cases, nor any argument as to why the particular sort of "privacy" (if that is even a proper term for such a broad concept as you suggest) for which you contend is more valuable than the ability of the courts to receive such information to counter my lengthy and detailed argument above as to why precicely the opposite is true.

I am concerned that you are simply re-asserting your original points without even attempting to produce an argument that counters my argument as to why your original points are not valid. Do you accept that my arguments completely answer your original claims that you have re-stated in your above post? If not, precisely where is their flaw, do you say?

[Chicago Kipling]

Ashcroft, I find your arguments and suggestions generally very well thought out. And I've already proven myself a novice, which I am happy to do for the sake of clarity.

Could you point out specific references of you dealing with the issue of the fraudulant modification or creation of chat records? You mention them often, but I see few. While I respect your faith in the courts and while I have great trust in my new friends here in the city, I do not have an overwhelming trust of any system, especially those of a legal nature. And I do not yet know the officials we will have in six or twelve months time who may be new to the city.

I would be much happier with your proposal if it set standards for use of these texts, namely that

a) chat records need be available from more than one source to be considered any more valuable than personal testimony (Regretablly, I think they may well be given more weight simply by the name of their source if not clarified in this way.)

b) that there be explicit rules about any potential scripted recording devices (would it be that hard to essentially install "wiretap" devices that would unknowingly record a user's conversation?)

Again, you ask for proof that these things will happen. Whether legally sound or not, this is not the way many of us treat our government. For us, it is required of the government to establish that abuses will not happen and lay down safe guards in advance.

I would be happy to be proven wrong or illogical, but I have yet to see a true statement that speaks to what seem to be fairly rational concerns.

I'm not so sure I'm quite as worried as Patroklus about the use of any records, but your current section leaves a good deal to be desired.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Ashcroft, I've been considering what my response should be to your last post. I'm afraid that we seem to be locking heads on this one and are unlikely to break the logjam through the medium of these forums. I'll try to contact you inworld to see if that works any better. I think we need more input from other parties and, to that end, I'll post a thread on the Law Society of Second Life forums. These issues are of relevance to SL society as a whole and I'd be interested to hear what they have to say.

You complain that I have failed to answer your points in detail. I'll set out a more detailed response to some of the points you raise below. But here's where I'm coming from: you are proposing a fundamental change to the way we conduct our Second Lives. When I read this: [quote:31frztoc]"By entering into this agreement, you hereby give your unqualified and irrevocable consent for any records of any conversations or other communication, in any form whatsoever, whether made before or after this agreement was entered into, to be used in evidence in any in-world judicial proceedings, and for any records of any in-world judicial proceedings (including records of anything said by or to you during those proceedings) to be made available to the public in perpetuity."[/quote:31frztoc] I almost choked on my cornflakes! You're asking for a lot here and I think it's incumbent on you to demonstrate why this is essential. You are asking me to give up a most cherished aspect of my Second Life. You won't do that by cheap shots about 'absurd' reasoning, a refusal to accept that I have a right to the point of view I'm expressing and repeated claims that I'm failing to meet your arguments. Perhaps I need to introduce you to [url= Carnegie[/url:31frztoc]? I'll buy you this for Christmas . I am prepared to be convinced (believe it or not!) but I think that most other residents of SL will need a lot of persuading.

[quote:31frztoc]The point is this: in cases where the truthfulness of the conversation logs are questioned, there is a two stage process: (1) the court must decide whether the logs are truthful; and (2) if it finds that they are, it must decide what legal effect that the statements therein have. Our courts in that respect are no different from real-life courts, which have to hear evidence about what people remember about conversations (and, especially in the case of police officers on duty, conversations that are recorded word-for-word in a notebook). It is always possible (and trivially easy) to invent, either in oral evidence before the court, or in a (supposedly) contemporary written record, a false account of what was said, but that has never been a reason for the court to refuse to hear such evidence. Most evidence that real-life courts hear is evidence that it is trivially easy to invent (in theory at least - making it convincingly fit with the undisputed facts and be internally coherent is often another matter), where there is no ready and conclusive means of testing its accuracy. That is the whole function of the court as trier of fact: to decide who is telling the truth if there is a conflict on the matter. [/quote:31frztoc]Yes, I get it. Chat logs would be really useful in a court situation. They would enable the court to establish what has been said. But your problem is that you require my consent to do this and I refuse to give it. So you want to make it a condition of citizenship in Neufreistadt/CDS so that I have to consent to this if I want to remain a citizen. The promise you hold out is that of a functioning legal system. I'm sorry but you will have to do much better if you want me to sacrifice a cherished aspect of my Second Life for an untried and untested system of justice, the benefits of which can only currently be imagined.

You have completely ignored my concerns about privacy and the RL analogies I have drawn. What you propose is more far-reaching, more invasive than the measures proposed by RL governments in the so-called 'war on terror'. It's as if we were to accept that we should each have a recording device implanted so that any conversation we ever have can later be used as evidence. What you propose goes far further than a policeman with a notebook or any of the other analogies you draw. All of these are forms of information-gathering of varying degrees of reliablility. You are asking for access to verbatim records of every conversation we have ever had or ever will have.

[quote:31frztoc]The best way of making sure that what you say does not come back to bite you is to say only those things that you won't have cause to regret.[/quote:31frztoc] But your proposal also requires that I should never have said anything I may later have cause to regret. You want the power to trawl through everything I may have said back to my first day in SL (and beyond?) inworld and out! I note you haven't stressed the all encompassing nature of this demand.

[quote:31frztoc]It is a fairer and more just society in which the neutral arbiter that is the court, acting in accordance with law, decides whether what one has said should really be held against one, and that the same rule applies to all. [/quote:31frztoc] I would hope that our courts would be neutral arbiters (whether RL courts are is a contested issue), but they are, as yet unproven. Here you are promising to guide us to the sunlit uplands, provided we agree to a major change in the ToS. Since their worth has yet to be demonstrated this is not evidence but empty assertion.

[quote:31frztoc]Justice should never be sacrificed in the name of privacy merely so that people can conceal from the scrutiny of the institutions of justice their conduct, however reprehensible that it may be, or any evidence of such conduct.[/quote:31frztoc] Really? So where do you draw the lines in terms of the access the state may have in people's private lives. You seem to have a lot of faith in this putative system of justice. I, on the other hand, am more inclined to preserve my rights as they stand against any encroachment upon them until I am satisfied that I gain more from relinquishing them than I lose.

There's more I could say but this has taken long enough to write. Can I just make clear that I'm not attacking you Ashcroft, nor am I raising this issue for any reason other than it is a genuine concern of mine. I have been one of the strongest supporters of your proposals on this forum and others. I want them to succeed but this is a show-stopper for me (and I suspect it is for most other citizens too).

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Chicago Kipling":1zgjyow5]Could you point out specific references of you dealing with the issue of the fraudulant modification or creation of chat records? You mention them often, but I see few. While I respect your faith in the courts and while I have great trust in my new friends here in the city, I do not have an overwhelming trust of any system, especially those of a legal nature. And I do not yet know the officials we will have in six or twelve months time who may be new to the city.[/quote:1zgjyow5]

The point that I made about falsification of chat records was very simple: our courts, just like courts in the real world, will have to deal with conflicts of evidence, in which each party accuses the other of lying, and that must be so in respect of at least one of the parties. In our courts, just as in real world courts, there is no magic test that will tell whether a person is telling the truth or not (whether it be about what was said to her or him, and therefore contained in a chat log, or about anything else). In our courts, just as in real world courts, the trier of fact (the judge or the jury, as the case may be) will have to determine the issue of credibility (who is telling the truth) based on a careful and thorough analysis of all the evidence, looking for indicators such as internal consistency, consistency with undisputed (or indisputable) evidence, and inherent plausibility. The mere fact that there is no ultimately decicive means of telling whether any given piece of testimony is truthful or not is incapable of amounting to a reason why such testimony should not be admissible in evidence at all: if anything else were so, it would be impossible for courts effectively to perform their function as arbiter of factual disputes. If there is a reason enough to trust the people who are administering our courts to run a justice system at all, then there is necessarily reason enough to trust them enough to let them hear all the evidence necessary for them to do so effectively.

You ask for references to this argument in my previous posts: here is the most obvious,

[quote="I":1zgjyow5] Our courts in that respect are no different from real-life courts, which have to hear evidence about what people remember about conversations (and, especially in the case of police officers on duty, conversations that are recorded word-for-word in a notebook). It is always possible (and trivially easy) to invent, either in oral evidence before the court, or in a (supposedly) contemporary written record, a false account of what was said, but that has never been a reason for the court to refuse to hear such evidence.[/quote:1zgjyow5]

[quote:1zgjyow5]I would be much happier with your proposal if it set standards for use of these texts, namely that

a) chat records need be available from more than one source to be considered any more valuable than personal testimony (Regretablly, I think they may well be given more weight simply by the name of their source if not clarified in this way.) [/quote:1zgjyow5]

I am not quite sure why what you write above need be a rule of law, rather than an common-sense incident of factual reasoning. It might be worthwhile, I suppose, in jury trials, for the judge in summing-up in a case in which the truthfulness of a reported conversation is contested to remind the jury of the fallibility of chat logs, and direct them to treat them with respect to credibility just as any other element of witness testimony (of course, if and when the jury accept that the person tendering the logs in evidence is [i:1zgjyow5]truthful[/i:1zgjyow5] according to the normal means for doing so, and has not made them up, then a jury would be quite entitled to consider that the contents of the log would be more [i:1zgjyow5]accurate[/i:1zgjyow5] than a mere recollection, since it would be a direct record of what was said).

[quote:1zgjyow5]b) that there be explicit rules about any potential scripted recording devices (would it be that hard to essentially install "wiretap" devices that would unknowingly record a user's conversation?)[/quote:1zgjyow5]

I am not entirely sure how such a device might work (I am not intimitely familliar with the inner workings of SecondLife's scripting system) to know how such a rule might be framed. What exactly do you think that such rules should say, and what would be the justification for those particular rules?

[quote:1zgjyow5]Again, you ask for proof that these things will happen. [/quote:1zgjyow5]

I don't think that I do - my point is, as above, that any reason sufficient to justify having a justice system at all is reason enough to trust it to hear all the evidence that it needs to hear to discharge its functions effectively.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":69e8gl3a]Ashcroft, I've been considering what my response should be to your last post. I'm afraid that we seem to be locking heads on this one and are unlikely to break the logjam through the medium of these forums. I'll try to contact you inworld to see if that works any better.[/quote:69e8gl3a]

Alas, I was busy all yesterday evening preparing a case, the grid is offline to-night, and I need to submit a final bill by to-morrow evening (and had planned to do so this evening to leave a margin of error). I did receive your IM, though.

[quote:69e8gl3a]I think we need more input from other parties and, to that end, I'll post a thread on the Law Society of Second Life forums. These issues are of relevance to SL society as a whole and I'd be interested to hear what they have to say.[/quote:69e8gl3a]

Nothing relevant to our particular dispute seems to have come of it yet. I will check back periodically.

[quote:69e8gl3a]You complain that I have failed to answer your points in detail. I'll set out a more detailed response to some of the points you raise below. But here's where I'm coming from: you are proposing a fundamental change to the way we conduct our Second Lives. When I read this: [quote:69e8gl3a]"By entering into this agreement, you hereby give your unqualified and irrevocable consent for any records of any conversations or other communication, in any form whatsoever, whether made before or after this agreement was entered into, to be used in evidence in any in-world judicial proceedings, and for any records of any in-world judicial proceedings (including records of anything said by or to you during those proceedings) to be made available to the public in perpetuity."[/quote:69e8gl3a] I almost choked on my cornflakes! You're asking for a lot here and I think it's incumbent on you to demonstrate why this is essential. You are asking me to give up a most cherished aspect of my Second Life. You won't do that by cheap shots about 'absurd' reasoning, a refusal to accept that I have a right to the point of view I'm expressing and repeated claims that I'm failing to meet your arguments. Perhaps I need to introduce you to [url= Carnegie[/url:69e8gl3a]? I'll buy you this for Christmas . I am prepared to be convinced (believe it or not!) but I think that most other residents of SL will need a lot of persuading.[/quote:69e8gl3a]

The point that I was making about not meeting my arguments was, in short, this: your objection to my proposed Terms of Service amendment was that it would cause potential invasions of your privacy that you would find uncomfortable. My response to that was (to summarise) that, however uncomfortable that people may feel about it, it is a better world in which people are required to face the legal consequences (if any) of what they do and say than one in which, however comfortable that it makes people feel, people can evade those consequences by claiming that their privacy is more important than the effectiveness of the process by which those consequences are attached to their actions, and that real privacy is a narrower concept than the concept that you used, which entails only [i:69e8gl3a]unjustified[/i:69e8gl3a] interference with one's day-to-day activities, and that a court exercising its powers to visit due legal consequences upon the facts that it finds upon people can never be said to be an [i:69e8gl3a]unjustified[/i:69e8gl3a] such incursion, and therefore that the basic premise of your whole argument is false. In order, therefore, to continue to claim that my proposed amendment to the Terms of Service would have be wrong (in the sense that, overall, its consequences would be more bad than good), you would have to raise an argument to show why it is that the good of the comfort that you feel (and that you assume that others feel) at the prospect of evading the legal consequences of what one says outweighs the bad that flows from the widespread evasion of such consequences that would ensue if that prospect was actualised. In other words, you must expressly address the balance between, on the one hand, feeling comfortable at the idea of evading the court's jurisdiction, and, on the other, the importance of the law being effectively enforced.

You did not address that in your original reply, but I note that you do attempt to address it here, where you write,

[quote:69e8gl3a]You have completely ignored my concerns about privacy and the RL analogies I have drawn....[/quote:69e8gl3a]

(Incidentally, as discussed above, this is not so: you wrote that after a quote on a different section, where I was responding, not to the privacy related concerns, but the other argument that you raised about chat logs being easily forged. Nonetheless, you continue:)

[quote:69e8gl3a]What you propose is more far-reaching, more invasive than the measures proposed by RL governments in the so-called 'war on terror'. It's as if we were to accept that we should each have a recording device implanted so that any conversation we ever have can later be used as evidence. What you propose goes far further than a policeman with a notebook or any of the other analogies you draw. All of these are forms of information-gathering of varying degrees of reliablility. You are asking for access to verbatim records of every conversation we have ever had or ever will have....

I would hope that our courts would be neutral arbiters (whether RL courts are is a contested issue), but they are, as yet unproven. Here you are promising to guide us to the sunlit uplands, provided we agree to a major change in the ToS. Since their worth has yet to be demonstrated this is not evidence but empty assertion....

[W]here do you draw the lines in terms of the access the state may have in people's private lives? You seem to have a lot of faith in this putative system of justice. I, on the other hand, am more inclined to preserve my rights as they stand against any encroachment upon them until I am satisfied that I gain more from relinquishing them than I lose.[/quote:69e8gl3a]

Your argument here seems to be twofold: (1) what I propose goes further than what real-life governments consider acceptable; and (2) there is insufficient reason to trust the in-world judicial system to administer justice fairly, and therefore to give it access to information about people.

I deal with each in turn: as to the first, that argument, of course, has no real logical force, since the mere fact that other people believe something to be so is no reason for us to accept that it is so. To show that other governments in fact restrict what evidence that courts may hear based on your extended notion of privacy, rather than my more limited concept of privacy, does not show that they are right in doing so. Indeed, my argument is, for exactly the same reasons as I explain above, that governments around the world grossly misconceive the nature and importance of privacy, and in so doing, create perverse rules that sometimes have disasterous and/or oppressive consequences. We in the Confederation of Democratic Simulators are engaged in an exercise of state-building, and this is our opportunity to get things right that real governments get wrong.

As to the second issue, of course we cannot be [i:69e8gl3a]sure[/i:69e8gl3a] of the prospective justness of our in-world courts; we cannot even truly be [i:69e8gl3a]sure[/i:69e8gl3a] about real world courts. But certainty is too high a threshold. The point is, as I explained to Chicago above, however little we trust our in-world courts, we nonetheless trust them enough to give them exclusive powers to banish people and forfeit all of their land and other assets in Neufriestadt, to remove public officials from office, and to make final and binding determinations of fact and law when in dispute. Any reason that is sufficient to trust any institution or set of instutions with those weighty responsibilities is [i:69e8gl3a]necessarily[/i:69e8gl3a] reason enough to entrust to them the evidential means necessary to discharge those responsibilities. If the courts are trustworthy enough to hold your citizenship, your assets, and your public office (if any) in the balance, then it must also be trustworthy enough so to hold your comfort.

[quote:69e8gl3a]There's more I could say but this has taken long enough to write. Can I just make clear that I'm not attacking you Ashcroft, nor am I raising this issue for any reason other than it is a genuine concern of mine. I have been one of the strongest supporters of your proposals on this forum and others. I want them to succeed but this is a show-stopper for me (and I suspect it is for most other citizens too).[/quote:69e8gl3a]

I quite understand: the whole point of a democracy is to enable reasoned debate on matters of public importance, and my criticsm of you is no more than that the opinions that you express are flawed, for the reasons given above.

Nonetheless, I also recognise that another important aspect of democracy is the necessity to reach compromises that are at least moderately favourable to at least most concerned. To this extent, therefore, whilst I would still, for the principled reasons that I have given, urge anybody who considers the matter to accept the arguments that I have put forward in favour of the original term that I propose, in the interests of the expeditious adoption of the new system of judiciary that I have designed, I shall suggest the following compromise, which I will insert into my final Judiciary Bill, which I am about to submit both here and in notecard form to Claude for debate at the next Representative Assembly Meeting: given that you seem to be especially concerned about the retrospective aspect of the proposed terms, they might be made prospective only, to read thus:

[quote:69e8gl3a]By entering into this agreement, you hereby give your unqualified and irrevocable consent for any records of any conversations or other communication occuring after you enter into this agreement (or consent to a variation thereof whereby this term is inserted, whichever is later), in any form whatsoever, to be used in evidence in any in-world judicial proceedings, and for any records of any in-world judicial proceedings (including records of anything said by or to you during those proceedings) to be made available to the public in perpetuity.[/quote:69e8gl3a]

Any records of conversations entered into before that date would have to be dealt with under the orders for disclosure regieme that I suggested for non-citizens, whereby a court could, in its discretion, order that consent be given, but, if it is not, the court's remedy is limited to either striking out that party's case, or making a penal order, rather than hearing the evidence for which consent is not given.

As stated above, I am sorry that I have not had a chance to talk to you in-world about this, but I hope that this answers your queries. Thank you for your comments: it is always useful to have feedback.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[b:3nj3tx6t][u:3nj3tx6t]Final Judiciary Bill[/b:3nj3tx6t][/u:3nj3tx6t]

Following the discussions above, I present below the final draft of my [b:3nj3tx6t]Judiciary Bill[/b:3nj3tx6t], which I am just about to submit in official form via notecard to the leader of the Representative Assembly for debate, and hopefully passage, at the next meeting of the Representative Assembly this week-end.

[u:3nj3tx6t][b:3nj3tx6t]Changes in this version[/b:3nj3tx6t][/u:3nj3tx6t]

[b:3nj3tx6t]1. Chat logs[/b:3nj3tx6t]

As discussed above, as a compromise, I have removed the retrospectivity from the form of consent to the use of chat logs, so that the consent is only taken to be from after the variation comes into force. For chat logs before that date, the Orders for Disclosure regieme described above and elsewhere will apply (by virtue of the court's inherent jurisdiction to govern its own proceedings).

[b:3nj3tx6t]2. Marshals of the Peace[/b:3nj3tx6t]

As Patroklus noted, my Marshals of the Peace proposal partially duplicated what was already contained in the [b:3nj3tx6t]NL4-24 Defence of the Republic Act[/b:3nj3tx6t]. I have therefore included a provision to reapeal that older Act, as the Marshals of the Peace scheme is, and the old [b:3nj3tx6t]Defence of the Republic Act[/b:3nj3tx6t] is not, compliant with the new constitutional provisions safeguarding citizenship against removal without trial in accordance with law, or consent not to be so tried.

[b:3nj3tx6t]3. Precedent of the Scientific Council on constitutional matters[/b:3nj3tx6t]

I have addressed the issue raised by Patroklus about the duty to follow the Scientific Council's precedents in the interpretation of the constitution.

[b:3nj3tx6t]4. Judges sitting in their own causes[/b:3nj3tx6t]

I have inserted a new provision expressly forbidding people from acting as judges (or jurors) in their own casues.

[b:3nj3tx6t]5. Banishment of public officials[/b:3nj3tx6t]

Following Justice Soothsayer's concerns, I have clarified the section relating to banishment of public officials.

[b:3nj3tx6t]6. Miscellaneous[/b:3nj3tx6t]

There are one or two minor wording enhamcenents.

[b:3nj3tx6t]7. Things not changed[/b:3nj3tx6t]

I have not provided for an elected or frequenty re-appointed judiciary for all the reasons that I have given in the discussions above: security of tenure and non-politicisation is vital for the proper administration of justice.

I have not provided for any sort of automatic repeal ("sunset clause"), as the consequences for legal certainty and the proper administration of justice of a justice system that was timed to self-destruct would be disasterous (as explained above): what of somebody, for example, had a case going through the courts at the expiry of the three months if the Act was not re-approved? Any further changes to the justice system should be incremental and done with consultation.

I have not expressly provided for a Judiciary Review Panel because it is not clear to me yet how many, if any, people would be willing to sit on such a panel, and what, if any, demand for one that there really is. It is probably better to fix problems as and when they arise rather than dedicating a great deal of (ultimately very limited) resources to checking to see whether there is a problem, just in case. If a Judiciary Review Panel were thought necessary, however, there is no reason why that would have to be provided for at the same time as the [b:3nj3tx6t]Judiciary Act[/b:3nj3tx6t] is passed: that could easily be created subsequently.

[b:3nj3tx6t][u:3nj3tx6t]Commendation[/b:3nj3tx6t][/u:3nj3tx6t]

I know that there have been some disagreements about some aspects of this Bill which, whilst small in terms of the proportion of the content of that bill as to its whole, are nonetheless important. I hope that those disputes will not distract us from establishing without delay a judicial system that I believe will be worthy of Neufriestadt's (and hereafter, the Confederation's) unparallelled status as the most justly administered community in SecondLife, and the only true example of real government for a virtual world. As I have written before, we are the pioneers of law in virtual worlds: what we are doing now, and seeking to do in the future, nobody else has ever done before. The developments that I propose are significant. Let us not delay the construction of what we all agree will be a magnificant palace by disagreeing over the colour that we should paint the walls. If we must compromise on the details (as I have done with chat logs) to acheive overall what we all want to acheive, then so be it. Nothing that we pass now will bind us for ever: anything that we do now can, with due procedure, be undone in the future. I hope, of course, that that will not be necessary for most of what I propose, but it should be borne in mind by those who might otherwise be inclinded to an overabundance of caution, which, while well-intentioned, can often lead to greater dangers than it can prevent.

With that all in mind, I commend to the citizens of Neufriestadt this bill, in the hope that it will be passed.

[b:3nj3tx6t]The Judiciary Bill
[i:3nj3tx6t]Final[/i:3nj3tx6t][/b:3nj3tx6t]

[i:3nj3tx6t]A Bill to make provision for a professional judiciary, judicial procedure, to reform citizenship rights and duties with respect thereto, to make provisions for marshals of the peace, and to make repeals and consequential amendments to the Constitution and certain Acts of the Representative Assembly, as well as to make provisions for bringing official documents in line with the recent change of name to "The Confederation of Democratic Simulators"[/i:3nj3tx6t].

[b:3nj3tx6t]Chapter I - the Judiciary Commission and the Common Jurisdiction[/b:3nj3tx6t]

1. The following section shall be inserted at the end of the Constitution, but before the table of amendments: –

***

[b:3nj3tx6t]Article VII - The Judiciary[/b:3nj3tx6t]

1. There shall be a Judiciary Commission, the chair of which shall be appointed by simple majority vote in the Scientific Council, and who shall hold office until resignation or successful impeachment, whichever is sooner.

2. The chair of the Judiciary Commission shall have the power: –

(a) to appoint a Chief Judge of Common Jurisdiction, who shall hold office until resignation or successful impeachment, whichever is sooner;

(b) to determine the total number of Judges of Common Jurisdiction who shall hold office at any given time, who shall each hold office until resignation or successful impeachment, whichever is sooner;

(c) subject to any duly ratified Act of the Representative Assembly, and the exercise of any authority delegated thereby, and subject to any contrary proclamation of the Guildmeister, to commission and, once commissioned, maintain and administer as many court-houses as the chair shall deem appropriate, for the purposes of holding trials and other judicial hearings, and any other purposes as the chair shall deem appropriate, provided always that neither the Representative Assembly or the Guild individually or between shall prohibit the commissioning, construction, maintenance and continued existence and use of at least one court-house;

(d) to expend any monies held by the Judiciary Commission for any purposes connected with the discharge of any of the functions of the Judiciary Commission;

(e) subject to Section 5 below, to employ, for valuable remuneration or otherwise, such deputies and officers, and to delegate to them such functions, as the chair shall deem appropriate;

(f) to provide, or arrange to have provided, advice to citizens who may submit bills to the Representative Assembly, or any official, or delegate of that official, charged with drafting or approving regulations under powers delegated to her or him by the Constitution or any duly ratified Act of the Representative Assembly, concerning the drafting of such legislation or regulations, provided always that the Judiciary Commission shall not provide advice as to the desirability of any policy objective of such legislation or regulations;

(g) to publicise, both within the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, and elsewhere, the judicial system of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, or publicise the Confederation of Democratic Simulators (or any geographic subset thereof) by publicising its judicial system;

(h) to provide, and oversee the provision by others of, education concerning the law and legal system of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, and to issue, or regulate the issue of, qualifications in respect thereof;

(i) to provide advice to other governments and similar institutions in SecondLife and other such virtual worlds concerning the establishment and development of judicial systems therein;

(j) to maintain and publicise a record of all judicial proceedings, precedents and other public official judicial documents, not being documents relating to judicial proceedings in the Scientific Council; and

(k) to bring impeachment proceedings against any Judge of Common Jurisdiction, on the grounds only of either or both of (i) gross dereliction of duty, whether culpable or not, but, if not culpable, sustained for at least 28 days; or (ii) bias, corruption or insanity.

3. Even when not sitting as a Judge of Common Jurisdiction in an individual case or cases, the Chief Judge of Common Jurisdiction shall have the power: –

(a) to determine who other than her or himself shall be appointed to be a Judge of Common Jurisdiction;

(b) to determine which Judges of Common Jurisdiction shall hear which cases, or parts thereof;

(c) to issue general directions concerning procedure in Courts of Common Jurisdiction, which shall, subject to any contrary provision in the Constitution or any duly ratified Act of the Representative Assembly, have the force of law;

(d) to determine which Courts of Common Jurisdiction shall be superior, and which inferior; and

(e) to bring impeachment proceedings against the Chair of the Judiciary Commission or any other Judge of Common Jurisdiction, on the grounds only, of either or both of (i) gross dereliction of duty, whether culpable or not, but, if not culpable, sustained for at least 28 days; or (ii) bias, corruption or insanity, or additionally, in the case of the Chair of the Judiciary Commission, either or both of (i) gross incompetence; or (ii) gross fiscal imprudence.

4. Nothing in this Constitution shall prevent a single person holding office both as the Chair of the Judiciary Commission and the Chief Judge of Common Jurisdiction simultaneously or in succession, but, if a single person simultaneously holds office as any Judge of Common Jurisdiction and the Chair of the Judiciary Commission, any impeachment of that person that succeeds only on grounds applicable only to the Chair of the Judiciary Commission shall not have effect in removing that person from the office of Judge of Common Jurisdiction, whether Chief Judge or otherwise, or disqualifying that person from holding office as any Judge of Common Jurisdiction.

5. Only Judges of Common Jurisdiction shall preside over proceedings in any trial or other hearing, or deliver any judgment as to the law in any Court of Common Jurisdiction, or otherwise exercise any of the powers of any Court of Common Jurisdiction, save for those powers exercisable by juries, and any power, not exercised during the course of a trial or other hearing, deemed by any Judge of Common Jurisdiction to be administrative in nature, providing always that any party to such proceedings may appeal to a Judge of Common Jurisdiction from any such administrative decision.

6. Only Judges of Common Jurisdiction or juries empanelled in accordance with law shall deliver any judgment or verdict as to any question of fact in any trial or hearing in any Court of Common Jurisdiction.

7. A person who is a party to any case shall not preside over that case as judge or juror, or over any part thereof.

8. Subject to any powers of the Scientific Council when sitting as a court expressly stated in the text of this Constitution, Courts of Common Jurisdiction, and only Courts of Common Jurisdiction, shall have the power when giving judgment on a disputed matter between two or more parties (who must be residents of SecondLife or bodies corporate, including states, recognised as such by the law of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, but who need not be citizens of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators): –

(a) to make binding determinations of the rights, duties, powers, privileges, immunities, liabilities and disabilities of any or all such parties according to the law of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators;

(b) to make binding determinations of any facts in dispute between any or all such parties, provided that making such determinations are necessary in order to make such a determination as mentioned in paragraph (a) above, or (c) below;

(c) subject to either (i) a party formally accepting, or (ii) a court finding as a fact at a trial held in accordance with law that a party's conduct is culpable, to impose upon that party in respect of that conduct any penalty, including, but not limited to, banishment from any or all territory of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, either permanently or for such shorter period as shall be specified by the court, and forfeiture of any SecondLife asset (including debts and other
such duties owed thereto), either immediately or suspended on such conditions as the court may prescribe;

(d) to make any non-penal orders such as to give effect to the rights, duties, powers, privileges, immunities, liabilities and disabilities of any party according to the law of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, including any law relating to judicial procedure, or any other person or body on behalf of whom any party makes any claim, or to give effect to any penalty imposed by any Court of Common Jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph (c) above; and

(e) to order that any person be removed from the court-house at which any trial or any other hearing is being held, or, if he or she refuses so to be removed, banished from the Confederation of Democratic Simulators for the duration of that trial or other hearing (and for up to one hour thereafter) on the ground that that person is disrupting court proceedings, improperly interfering with the administration of justice, or attempting to do so.

9. All trials and other hearings in any Court of Common Jurisdiction shall be held in public, and, subject to section 8(e) above, any person (whether or not a citizen of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators) shall be entitled to observe the entirety of such proceedings, a full transcript of which shall be made available to the public at large in perpetuity and without charge.

10. When making any binding determination of the rights, duties, powers, privileges, immunities, liabilities and disabilities according to the law of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators of any parties in any proceedings in any Court of Common Jurisdiction, Judges of Common Jurisdiction shall be bound by the following sources of law, each item in the following list
taking precedence over each subsequent item: –

(a) the Constitution (as interpreted by any judgment of the Scientific Council sitting as a court, or of the Scientific Council in any capacity before the passing of the [b:3nj3tx6t]Judiciary Act[/b:3nj3tx6t] that sets a precedent);

(b) any duly ratified Act of the Representative Assembly;

(c) any regulations made under any powers delegated, whether directly or indirectly, by any duly ratified Act of the Representative Assembly;

(d) any judgment of the Scientific Council sitting as a court (or of the Scientific Council in any capacity before the passing of the [b:3nj3tx6t]Judiciary Act[/b:3nj3tx6t]) that establishes a precedent;

(e) any judgment of any superior Court of Common Jurisdiction that establishes a precedent; and

(f) any judgment of any Court of Common Jurisdiction of equal superiority that establishes a precedent,

and where a judgment of the Scientific Council sitting as a court, or any Court of Common Jurisdiction, establishes a precedent as to whether any regulations of the sort mentioned in paragraph (c) above are made in accordance with, or conflict with, any duly ratified Act of the Representative Assembly, that shall take precedence over any contrary regulations.

11. A judgment establishes a precedent where, in order to determine the outcome of the proceedings in respect of which the judgment, or any part thereof, was given the judge or judges who determined such an outcome (and, if, where more than one judge so determines, they disagree, a simple majority of them) reach any conclusion or conclusions regarding the law of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, that conclusion, and the reasoning used in reaching that conclusion, being the precedent set thereby.

12. A Judge of Common Jurisdiction, when delivering any judgment in any proceedings, or part thereof, in any Court of Common Jurisdiction, shall be bound to conclude that any duly ratified Act of the Representative Assembly is constitutional and has binding effect.

13. Nothing in this Constitution shall preclude any procedure whereby a party to proceedings in any inferior Court of Common Jurisdiction may appeal the outcome of such proceedings to any superior Court of Common Jurisdiction, which may allow or dismiss such an appeal in whole or in part.

14. Any Resident of SecondLife, or any body corporate (including any state) recognised by the law of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, whether or not a citizen of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, shall be entitled to commence proceedings to resolve any dispute capable of being resolved in accordance with the law of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, in a Court of Common Jurisdiction.

15. Subject to any provision in this Constitution, and any duly ratified Act of the Representative Assembly, Courts of Common Jurisdiction shall have inherent jurisdiction to govern their own proceedings.

16. The Court of Common Jurisdiction shall not have the power to hold any impeachment hearing, or to order that any public official who holds office in the Confederation of Democratic Simulators (whether a Judge of Common Jurisdiction, a member of the Representative Assembly, a member of the Scientific Council, a member of the Artisanal Collective, or other such body, or otherwise) cease to hold or be disqualified from holding such public office, or be suspended therefrom, whether with or without pay.

***

2. The following sections of the Constitution shall be repealed: –

(a) Article III, Section 6, apart from the first sentence thereof ([i:3nj3tx6t]Scientific Council - Hearings, Trials and Ratifications[/i:3nj3tx6t]);

(b) Article III, Section 7 ([i:3nj3tx6t]Scientific Council - Alternative Dispute Resolution[/i:3nj3tx6t]), the whole section;

(c) Article III, Section 8 before the beginning of the sentence that starts, "In regard to ([i:3nj3tx6t]sic[/i:3nj3tx6t]) the Representative Branch" ([i:3nj3tx6t]Powers of the Scientific Council[/i:3nj3tx6t]),

and the title of Article III, Section 6 shall be changed to "Ratification of bills passed by the Representative Assembly".

3. The following part of the NL4-14 Registration and Incorporation Act shall be repealed: Article 2, Section 3 ([i:3nj3tx6t]commercial court: constitution[/i:3nj3tx6t]): the whole section, and any references in any part of that Act to the "Commercial Court" shall be taken as references to the Court of Common Jurisdiction, and any reference therein to any procedure before the Commercial Court shall be subject to any general directions issued by the Chief Judge of Common Jurisdiction under Article VII, Section 3 (c) of the Constitution.

4. The following shall be added to the Constitution immediately at the end of Article II, Section 4 ([i:3nj3tx6t]Powers of the Artisanal Collective[/i:3nj3tx6t]): –

***

With respect to the judiciary:

1. The Artisanal Collective may bring impeachment proceedings against the Chair of the Judiciary Commission on the ground of gross fiscal imprudence.

***

5. The Judiciary Commission shall have the power to serve upon any citizen of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators notice that that person is required to serve on a jury in a Court of Common Jurisdiction; any such person upon whom such notice has been served shall attend at the date and time set out in the notice, unless excused from so doing by a Judge of Common Jurisdiction after notice was served but before the date and time specified therein, and shall, unless excused from so doing by a Judge of Common Jurisdiction, duly serve as a juror, and act in accordance with all lawful directions of the Court.

[b:3nj3tx6t]Chapter II - the Scientific Council[/b:3nj3tx6t]

6. The following shall be inserted in the Constitution between Article III, Section 6 and Article III, Section 8:

***

[b:3nj3tx6t]Section 7 - The Court of Scientific Council[/b:3nj3tx6t]

1. The Scientific Council shall sit as a court when it exercises, or is considering whether to exercise, its power: –

(a) to impeach any person; or

(b) to allow any appeal from any Court of Common Jurisdiction.

2. When the Scientific Council sits as a court, it shall be known as "The Court of Scientific Council".

3. When sitting as a court, the Scientific Council shall be presided over by an odd number of judges greater in number than one, each of whom shall be members of the Scientific Council, not also being Judges of Common Jurisdiction or the Chair of the Judiciary Commission.

4. The Dean of the Scientific Council shall determine which members of the Scientific Council sit as judges in any trial or other hearing before the Court of Scientific Council.

5. Where not all Judges of the Court of Scientific Council agree on a judgment in any proceedings before it, the judgment of the Court shall be that agreed upon by a simple majority of those judges presiding over those proceedings.

6. The Scientific Council, when sitting as a court, shall be bound to conclude that any duly ratified Act of the Representative Assembly is constitutional and has binding effect.

7. All trials and other hearings before the Scientific Council when sitting as a court shall be held in public, and, subject to section 8 below, any person (whether or not a citizen of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators) shall be entitled to observe the entirety of such proceedings.

8. The Court of Scientific Council shall have the same powers as Courts of Common Jurisdiction as is conferred by Article VII, section 8(e) of this Constitution ([i:3nj3tx6t]persons misbehaving in court[/i:3nj3tx6t]).

9. The Court of Scientific Council shall sit without a jury.

10. The Court of Scientific Council shall have the power to make such orders as is necessary for the exercise of the powers conferred upon it by this Constitution or any duly ratified Act of the Representative Assembly.

11. Subject to any provision in this Constitution, and any duly ratified Act of the Representative Assembly, the Court of Scientific Council shall have inherent jurisdiction to govern its own proceedings.

12. The Dean of the Scientific Council shall have the power to issue general directions concerning procedure in Scientific Council, when sitting as a court and otherwise, which shall, subject to any contrary provision in the Constitution or any duly ratified Act of the Representative Assembly, have the force of law.

***

7. The following shall be added to the Constitution immediately at the end of Article III, Section 8 ([i:3nj3tx6t]Powers of the Scientific Council[/i:3nj3tx6t]): –

***

[i:3nj3tx6t]With respect to the judiciary[/i:3nj3tx6t]:

1. The Scientific Council, when sitting as a court, may hear and determine an appeal from any superior Court of Common Jurisdiction (or any inferior Court of Common Jurisdiction if no superior Court of Common Jurisdiction will entertain an appeal on the matter), and either uphold or overturn the decision (or any part thereof) from which the appeal is made, but only on the grounds both that the Court of Common Jurisdiction from which the appeal is sought: –

(a) acted in the proceedings out of which the appeal arises outside its jurisdiction as conferred by the text of this Constitution; and

(b) that, by so doing, whether wholly or in part, incorrectly determined any issue in dispute between any parties to those proceedings (including any question of law necessary to resolve such a dispute).

2. Without prejudice to the specificity of the foregoing, the Scientific Council when sitting as a court shall not in any circumstances have the power to determine any appeal from any Court of Common Jurisdiction only on any or all of the following grounds: –

(a) that the Court of Common Jurisdiction reached the wrong conclusion on any question of fact;

(b) that the Court of Common Jurisdiction wrongly interpreted or applied the common law of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators (except the common law with respect to the jurisdiction of the Courts of Common Jurisdiction);

(c) that the Court of Common Jurisdiction wrongly interpreted or applied any duly ratified Act of the Representative Assembly (except where the Court of Common Jurisdiction expressly purports to disapply any Act of the Representative Assembly); or

(d) that the Court of Common Jurisdiction wrongly interpreted, applied, or disapplied any regulation (or similar) made by any person or body deriving its power to do so from the Representative Assembly, or any person or body who, in turn, derives her, his or its power to do so from the Representative Assembly,

nor shall any of those grounds have any bearing on the outcome of any appeal from any Court of Common Jurisdiction to the Court of Scientific Council.

[i:3nj3tx6t]Impeachment proceedings[/i:3nj3tx6t]

1. Impeachment is an order that a holder of public office cease to hold such public office, or is suspended from such office for any time with or without pay, and/or is disqualified either permanently or for a term certain from holding any or all public office or offices.

2. A person may only be impeached by the Scientific Council, sitting as a court, following a trial in accordance with law.

3. Only persons (or persons acting on behalf of bodies) specified in the text of the Constitution shall have the power to commence impeachment proceedings.

4. Subject to Article IV, Sections 2 and 7 of this Constitution, nothing in this Constitution shall prevent a Court of Common Jurisdiction from banishing any person, even where that person is a holder of public office in the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, and banishment would preclude that person from continuing to hold such public office.

5. When a member of the Scientific Council brings impeachment proceedings, that person shall not sit as a judge of the Court of Scientific Council hearing those proceedings at any stage thereof.

***

8. The following sections of the constitution shall be repealed: –

(a) Article I, Section 7 ([i:3nj3tx6t]Powers of the Representative Assembly[/i:3nj3tx6t]), the following text: (i) "The leader of the RA sits as the leader of the Artisanal branch if the Artisanal branch seeks to impeach a member of the Philosophic branch," and (ii) "The leader of the RA sits as the leader of the Philosophic branch if the Philosophic branch seeks to impeach a member of the
Artisanal branch"; and

(b) Article II, Section 4 ([i:3nj3tx6t]Powers of the Artisanal Collective[/i:3nj3tx6t]), the following text: (i) "The leader of the AC sits as the leader of the Representative branch if the Representative branch seeks to impeach a member of the Philosophic branch," and (ii) "The leader of the AC sits as the leader of the Philosophic branch if the Philosophic branch seeks to impeach a member of the Representative branch".

[b:3nj3tx6t]Chapter III - Name and citizenship[/b:3nj3tx6t]

9. The title of the Neufreistadt Constitution shall hereafter be, "The Constitution of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators".

10. Any reference in any Act of the Representative Assembly passed before the date on which this Act comes into force to "Neufreistadt" or to “Neualtenburgâ€

[Chicago Kipling]

Thank you for your careful response Ashcroft. I can't hope to fully respond to the level of your arguments as you have training that is quite valuable here. I'm glad you're using it to better the city.

I am sad though that while we still discuss this issue you leave this section in the bill you propose. The issues I have had have never been one of grandfathering so your attempt at compromise, while good-hearted, misses the point. This bill has great promise to move us forward, but a lack of meaningful compromise on this issue means that I'm more inclined to encourage opposition to the entire bill than see this matter pass.

We do entrust the judiciary with many weighty decisions, but there are many others we call our representatives to speak on first so that the course of the judiciary will be one that is consistently respectful of the citizens.

I stand by my opinion that this matter, which I still ponder over greatly without clear result, is too weighty to hand to the courts without any guidance. It involves defining the nature and trustworthiness of a hybrid of "speech" and recording that few courts have yet dealt with to my knowledge. If nothing else, I would much rather this be brought as a separate bill.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Chicago Kipling":1hx72arq]Thank you for your careful response Ashcroft. I can't hope to fully respond to the level of your arguments as you have training that is quite valuable here. I'm glad you're using it to better the city.[/quote:1hx72arq]

That is kind of you to say.

[quote:1hx72arq]I am sad though that while we still discuss this issue you leave this section in the bill you propose.[/quote:1hx72arq]

I leave it in because nobody has yet found any arguments against the section that answer those that I put forward in favour of it. Despite that, I have proposed a compromise.

[quote:1hx72arq]The issues I have had have never been one of grandfathering so your attempt at compromise, while good-hearted, misses the point.[/quote:1hx72arq]

What do you mean by "grandfathering" here, and why does it miss the point? What do you think that the point is, exactly? The point of the compromise was to address at least part of the concerns raised (the retrospectivity was something that seemed to be of particular concern for Patroklus: he wrote, for example, "[i:1hx72arq] But your proposal also requires that I should never have said anything I may later have cause to regret. You want the power to trawl through everything I may have said back to my first day in SL (and beyond?) inworld and out! I note you haven't stressed the all encompassing nature of this demand[/i:1hx72arq]") whilst retaining the most important part of the proposal.

[quote:1hx72arq]This bill has great promise to move us forward, but a lack of meaningful compromise on this issue means that I'm more inclined to encourage opposition to the entire bill than see this matter pass.[/quote:1hx72arq]

So far, I have been the only one to propose any sort of compromise. Given what Patroklus, in particular, has written on the matter, why do you think that it is not meaningful? What that is genuinely a compromise (in that it involves a significant concession on the part of those who oppose the section) would you consider meaningful?

[quote:1hx72arq]We do entrust the judiciary with many weighty decisions, but there are many others we call our representatives to speak on first so that the course of the judiciary will be one that is consistently respectful of the citizens. [/quote:1hx72arq]

As I have explained several times now, there is noting in the least disrespectful about not prohibiting parties to proceedings or witnesses from giving evidence from logs of conversations held.

[quote:1hx72arq]I stand by my opinion that this matter, which I still ponder over greatly without clear result, is too weighty to hand to the courts without any guidance.[/quote:1hx72arq]

It is of concern to me that you wish to have others acting in accordance with a claim for which you are unable to muster an argument. What [i:1hx72arq]kind[/i:1hx72arq] of guidance do you seek, [i:1hx72arq]why[/i:1hx72arq] do you claim that there should be guidance of that particular sort, and how is anything too weighty for a duly constituted court?

[quote:1hx72arq]It involves defining the nature and trustworthiness of a hybrid of "speech" and recording that few courts have yet dealt with to my knowledge. If nothing else, I would much rather this be brought as a separate bill.[/quote:1hx72arq]

You write that you are sad that I still propose the amendment; I still propose it for all the detailed reasons that I have already given. I am sad that you still oppose it, despite not being able to answer those reasons.

Issues of importance must always be decided in accordance with reason: this is far too important a matter to be left to whim and fancy. Genuine, principled opposition to what I propose, based on reason, and that is able to answer the arguments that I raise in support of it, is one thing, but sometimes people have to accept that, however strongly that they feel about an issue, those feelings must come second to reason, and, if reason cannot be found to support their opinion, then those feelings must be put aside in the name of doing what is right. This is one of those times.

[Justice Soothsayer]

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2ifwitzx]Genuine, principled opposition to what I propose, based on reason, and that is able to answer the arguments that I raise in support of it, is one thing, but sometimes people have to accept that, however strongly that they feel about an issue, those feelings must come second to reason, and, if reason cannot be found to support their opinion, then those feelings must be put aside in the name of doing what is right. This is one of those times.[/quote:2ifwitzx]

With all due respect, I have found that preserving one's privacy online is an issue where passion might triumph over reason. Since a significant number of members of our community have expressed reservations about the admissibility of chat logs (or conditioning citizenship on a required waiver of the TOS), I would suggest dropping that part of the proposed judiciary bill.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Justice Soothsayer":3cnv8nm6]With all due respect, I have found that preserving one's privacy online is an issue where passion might triumph over reason. Since a significant number of members of our community have expressed reservations about the admissibility of chat logs (or conditioning citizenship on a required waiver of the TOS), I would suggest dropping that part of the proposed judiciary bill.[/quote:3cnv8nm6]

I think that I am now too late to introduce anything else, but amendments could always be tabled, could they not, at an RA meeting?

In any event, do we not aspire to be a soceity where, no matter what people elsewhere do, what is right prevails over what is wrong, and where decisions are made following a reasoned debate on the basis of reason, and reason alone? Should we not be slow to give in to the forces of irrationality?

[Patroklus Murakami]

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":1o5o4cp1]In any event, do we not aspire to be a soceity where, no matter what people elsewhere do, what is right prevails over what is wrong, and where decisions are made following a reasoned debate on the basis of reason, and reason alone? Should we not be slow to give in to the forces of irrationality?[/quote:1o5o4cp1]

You're mischaracterising the position of your oppponents Ashcroft. It's a poor debating tactic and is failing to win me over. We are not 'the forces of irrationality', we are fellow citizens who respectfully disagree with you for the reasons outlined in this debate. It would help your case if you at least acknowledged that we have the right to our point of view and respected it rather than employing such emotive language to prove a point.

I've put forward reasons why I fundamentally disagree with this aspect of your proposal, so have others. My concerns are entirely rational, as are theirs.

[Chicago Kipling]

I have little else to say at present. Ashcroft, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and take your statements as ones made due to your zeal for the law. It is my hope that our representatives will see this matter as complex enough to be considered separately from this otherwise fine bill.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":zqcv0m7w]You're mischaracterising the position of your oppponents Ashcroft. It's a poor debating tactic and is failing to win me over. We are not 'the forces of irrationality', we are fellow citizens who respectfully disagree with you for the reasons outlined in this debate. It would help your case if you at least acknowledged that we have the right to our point of view and respected it rather than employing such emotive language to prove a point.

I've put forward reasons why I fundamentally disagree with this aspect of your proposal, so have others. My concerns are entirely rational, as are theirs.[/quote:zqcv0m7w]

I was responding to Justice Soothsayer, when he wrote.

[quote:zqcv0m7w]preserving one's privacy online is an issue where passion might triumph over reason. Since a significant number of members of our community have expressed reservations about the admissibility of chat logs (or conditioning citizenship on a required waiver of the TOS), I would suggest dropping that part of the proposed judiciary bill.[/quote:zqcv0m7w]

By writing that, he was suggesting that because a large number of people believe, whether rationally or not, that the change to the Terms of Service would be a bad thing, it should for that reason alone be dropped from the Bill. My point was simply that other people's views per se are not relevant: what is relevant is whether those views are right, which can only be determined by subjecting the substance of them to logical scrutiny.

Justice was suggesting, effectively, that we give in to other (unspecified) people, whose "passion [had] triumph[ed] over reason". I stated that we should be more bold than that, and defend what reason, and reason alone, tells us is right. That means not making concessions unless the people asking for the conessions are able to produce an argument that convincingly shows that all arguments that purport to be conclusive against the concessions are flawed.

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Just a brief comment on "wiretapping" communications in Second Life, or any other medium.

The rationality of if wiretapping is, or not, the rational way of creating a better world is irrelevant based on the premises that the Neufreistadt Constitution is based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which clearly states on its Article 12, "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his [b:3het2msr]privacy[/b:3het2msr], family, home or [b:3het2msr]correspondence[/b:3het2msr]" (emphasis mine).

Worse than that, in some countries, doing continuous wiretapping of electronic communications (as opposed to selective wiretapping, or wiretapping as ordered by a court), can be considered in a criminal offense. In Portugal, for instance, if I did that, I could get 5-10 years of jail. Definitely not a prospect that I look forward to

The issue here is [i:3het2msr]arbitrary interference[/i:3het2msr]. It's obvious that if someone is a suspect in any sort of crime (harassment, defamation, cheating...), and a NFS Court would demand more proof, wiretapping communications could be authorised — after due following of the procedures. Without those procedures in place, all capture of communication by others, without their explicit consent, is a violation of their privacy.

Even if one could argue that "rationally" and "logically" a better world is one where we have the ability to spy upon others at will, making thus everybody more aware that anything they say in private can be used against them (and naturally, such a 1984-ish logic is well beyond my abilities to understand), there is still the jurisdiction of Second Life to consider, which, like any sensible jurisdiction, defaults to Californian law, which also protects the privacy of electronic communications. Thus we have no foundation to establish an exception on the right to privacy that is valid only in Neufreistadt. Doing so would be at the very least a LL ToS violation, and considered a crime in many countries.

Ashcroft, you can argue rationally and logically until your fingers drop from typing, but I'm sorry — the current SC will never accept a bill or a constitutional amendment that limits a citizen's right to privacy [i:3het2msr]in any way[/i:3het2msr].

Arguing that a chat log is not worth much, except as an aid for establishing a judgement, and that you can lie on chat logs as well as without them, is a pointless discussion. You might be 100% right on your assessment. Still, you'll still be arguing about establishing a new right, the right to overrule privacy — a fundamental, non-alienable human right as per the UDHR — in your quest for a "better, fairer world".

Sorry It doesn't work that way.

Still, let's not get too distracted about a single issue. Like a good lawyer, dismissing a clause in a contract does not mean automatically that the whole contract is now void; there are still very good points worth discussing and implementing from your proposal.

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

On another point, and just to let matters settle while we delve further on this very strong and complex proposal, I have a few questions for clarification:

[b:1gzfqdu4]Proposed Article VIII, section 9:[/b:1gzfqdu4]
[quote:1gzfqdu4]All trials and other hearings in any Court of Common Jurisdiction shall be held in public, and, subject to section 8(e) above, any person (whether or not a citizen of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators) shall be entitled to observe the entirety of such proceedings, a full transcript of which shall be made available to the public at large in perpetuity and without charge.[/quote:1gzfqdu4]

One issue we have found during the longest (and most painful) hearing ever in our history was dealing with the way on how witnesses should present their views, without knowing what other witnesses might have said.

In some cases it is customary that the witnesses are not in plain view of each other when bearing witness. This means that, for a certain period of time, people might have both "private" and fully public parts, as the judges in session listen to a witness' testimonial.

Do you think that the right to selectively call in witnesses but disallow temporary others to listen to what they're saying is in conflict with your proposed section 9?

If yes, there should be a provision for selective hearing of witnesses in some cases.

If no, there probably should be a one-liner explaining why not.

[b:1gzfqdu4]2. (b) Article III, Section 7 (Scientific Council - Alternative Dispute Resolution), the whole section;[/b:1gzfqdu4]

Justice Soothsayer has made a point elsewhere about the importance of Alternative Dispute Resolution as a quick and efficient means to have two conflicting parts to agree to compromise on something without the need of going through a full judicial process.

Why do you think it's important to remove this right from the citizens? I might have missed your argumentation against it. Almost all legal systems I know usually have this option somewhere. In many petty cases, all that is needed is a moderator to calm down both conflicting parties and find some common ground, without requiring due process...

[b:1gzfqdu4]Impeachment proceedings[/b:1gzfqdu4]

Apparently you've placed all duties of impeachment proceedings into the Scientific Council. In the past, a question was raised, which has only (partially) answered so far: what happens when the Scientifc Council, abusing its powers, prevent the other branches from working, by establishing itself as a "police state" through an abuse of their vetoing powers, employed collectively (ie. with all Chairs of the SC in full agreement and working together)? The SC would thus be impossible to remove; even selective impeachment of them would never come to bear fruit, since all the remaining judges would naturally vote down any attempts of impeachment.

The provision left open on the current Constitution, despite all flaws it might have, is the ability of the RA to impeach the whole SC in a single act. The complex "dance of chairs" established on the Constitution would thus allow the whole block of SC members to sit in trial, presided by the Guildmeister (or someone appointed by the Guildmeister). That way, the SC could not ever "seize power".

A similar provision seems not to exist on your proposed text: members of the SC will be tried and judged by their own peers, and one has to assume that they are [i:1gzfqdu4]not[/i:1gzfqdu4] working together as a block to "seize power".

Removing the power of impeachment by the other two branches is effectively depositing even more power on the Scientific Council — one thing that most citizens were very much against on the previous term, and I tend to agree.

On Article VI - Citizenship, I have a question on the wording (and it's just the wording) on section 2: [i:1gzfqdu4]no citizen shall be deprived of citizenship in the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, nor shall any person, whether a citizen or not, be banished from any public land in the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, without trial in accordance with law, or consent not to be so tried.[/i:1gzfqdu4]

What happens when someone does not consent to be tried according to the law? Would that mean that someone could not be legally banned? Remember that this will be the most common case wth griefers...

Alternative: trials [i:1gzfqdu4]in absentia[/i:1gzfqdu4].

[b:1gzfqdu4]13. All citizens of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators shall consent to the variation in the Terms of Service provided for in Section 12 above on or before the 1st of September 2006.[/b:1gzfqdu4]

How will they show their consent? And what exactly do you propose to do about people not giving their explicit consent to the new ToS?

In any case, I feel that this bill is much more "edible" than a 20-page long document with full details on each step of the procedures, and worth some tiny revisions to have it approved...