View Topic

Ahem, I am calling for a review of the Criminal Code of Laws, namely section 5.1.2 and part of section 9.2

The reason is as follows:

Section 5.1.2 states that,

Sharing your Wintreath nation with someone who did not register the account

which is a major offense. This violates Article V section 4 which states,

Citizens shall have the right to manage their nations without interference, except for caps placed on the number of World Assembly endorsements for the protection of the legal Delegate.

This law violates the citizen's rights as sharing the account itself can be considered as managing their nations.

Also part of Section 9.2, specifically this clause,

all forms of online illegal action (hacking) against Wintreath holdings

can be considered unconstitutional due to the fact that under Article VI, Section 4 and 5 the Sorting does NOT have the authority to define online illegal action as treason, due to the fact that Section 5 Prohibits it as the Sorting themselves are not defined as having the power, due to the statement that Wintreath Holdings are to be managed by the Winter Nomad and any Subordinate Administrative Officials, as set in Section 2 of Article VI.

I also wish to request that this part of Section 9.2 be revised or expanded upon as

...or directly going against the word of the Monarch.

can be seen as violating Article V, Section 1, which states

Citizens shall have the right to speak and to protest freely

Also, with the current wording I could technically disagree with the Monarch on something and be tried for "going against the word of the Monarch," that is if I am interpreting this section properly.

Considering a large part of the authority behind this act comes from the Monarch himself, who would for the most part be involved in dealing with high crimes and their punishment, the ability to define hacking is stemming from him. If it were not defined in the Act there'd be a loophole making it technically legal.

As for the sharing nations, that's a self-evident point. Citizens themselves are free to manage their nations how they want. Keyword here being THEMSELVES, THEY and THEIR. Sharing a nation is not allowed, nor is it allowed in many other regions. Any challenge against this would be met with: You're allowed to manage YOUR nation, but no-one else is.

'Directly going against the word of the Monarch' means directly disagreeing with an order or refusing to comply with a change the Monarch makes. This should be self-evident.

As the author of the Act, I suppose it doesn't hurt for you to respond, but I would advise all other members of the Storting not to at this point, as if the case is accepted they may be called upon to serve as judges.

Hope I am not overstepping here.

I agree with Weiss on the first two points.

I do agree with Chanku on the final point. The wording is too vague and muddled. Perhaps 'Directly going against the direct orders of the Monarch' would be better as it more clearly defines the sentiment.

I'm curious...the Storting hasn't indicated whether it intends to accept or decline Chanku's request with the term ending in just a few weeks. Are there any plans to now that the Administration of Justice Amendment Act has been defeated?

I did respond to this but so far no other members of the Storting have shown an interest in it.

I see no need for a review, the legislation is pretty straightforward and concise. As Weiss previously stated as well, with high crimes being dealt with from the throne, the Storting has not over stepped its bounds.

I do think that last section Chanku mentioned needs rewording.

Just change "word" to "order" or "decision" and then there isn't a problem. Of course, if that's what that clause was intended to mean.

Otherwise it can pretty easily be interpreted that anything spoken against the opinions - words - of the monarch is a crime, which is a violation of free speech.