We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Letter Inviolable Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Rightist Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: April 2524
Description[?]:
| TBD |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The confidentiality of letters and correspondence.
Old value:: The confidentiality of letters is inviolable, but the justice dept. can violate it in extreme situations.
Current: The confidentiality of letters is inviolable, but the justice dept. can violate it in extreme situations.
Proposed: The confidentiality of letters is inviolable, but the justice dept. can violate the confidentiality of letters with grounded cause.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:52:56, January 25, 2008 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Letter Inviolable Act |
| Message | We'll support |
| Date | 23:00:41, January 25, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Letter Inviolable Act |
| Message | We cannot empower the state to take further control over the lives of ordinary citizens. The current law is sufficiently restrictive that it is a justified limit on the right to privacy. |
| Date | 06:06:53, January 26, 2008 CET | From | JDW Tukarali Greens Party | To | Debating the Letter Inviolable Act |
| Message | oppose this opens the door for the cowboys to wiretap the entire nation I do not like wiretapping, but an "extreme situation" may merit it |
| Date | 11:38:45, January 26, 2008 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Letter Inviolable Act |
| Message | We see it differently. This would not open the door to abuse. On the contrary, as this would require a grounded reason to be given (eg being suspect of a crimes like terrorism, child pornography,...), instead of the rather open termed "extreme situation". |
| Date | 21:28:07, January 26, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Letter Inviolable Act |
| Message | But how does 1 know what an extreme situation is? With this, there are still checks and balances in place to make sure it is not misused. |
| Date | 23:35:04, January 26, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Letter Inviolable Act |
| Message | An "extreme situation" is a much higher standard than mere "ground cause". In both cases, the action would be judicially reviewable. There is no issue in whether there are checks and balances. |
| Date | 05:11:33, January 27, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Letter Inviolable Act |
| Message | So if someone is suspected of peddling child porn and sees it going on, one should get a warrent before checking someone's mail to see if they are receiving child porn or sending it out? |
| Date | 12:55:25, January 27, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Letter Inviolable Act |
| Message | Of course the police should get a warrant. There are very few situations where police should not be forced to get a warrant before acting. That is part of our wonderful justice system, where people are presumed innocent, and individuals have rights. |
| Date | 14:11:54, January 27, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Letter Inviolable Act |
| Message | "Of course the police should get a warrant." And by the time you get a warrent, the dude will skip town. I love how you have the safety of our people at heart. *sarcasm* |
| Date | 19:36:06, January 27, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Letter Inviolable Act |
| Message | That's an obvious misstatement. It does not take long to get a warrant. It merely ensures that the police actually have a case. |
| Date | 12:58:47, January 28, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Letter Inviolable Act |
| Message | And grounded cause doesn't? Do you even know what grounded cause means? |
| Date | 19:46:53, January 28, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Letter Inviolable Act |
| Message | "Grounded cause" is much wider, and includes cases where the police merely have some reason to suspect a crime. |
| Date | 00:59:45, January 29, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Letter Inviolable Act |
| Message | So if you grounded cause to look through a person's house or car, you would not exercise it? |
| Date | 02:14:12, January 29, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Letter Inviolable Act |
| Message | Only if the police have a warrant should they do that. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 224 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 276 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The influence a bill has on elections decreases over time, until it eventually is no longer relevant. This can explain shifts in your party's position to the electorate and your visibility. |
| Random quote: "From my point of view, the killing of another, except in defense of human life, is archistic, authoritarian, and therefore, no anarchist can commit such deeds. It is the very opposite of what anarchism stands for." - Jo Labadie |