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: Freedom to Correspond
Details
Submitted by[?]: AM Radical Libertarian 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 2126
Description[?]:
| WHEREAS the right of citizens to correspond with each other in private is a vital part of freedom of speach, AND it is incumbent upon the government to preserve the privacy of this correspondance unless there are provable reasons to violate it, AND realizing that there will arise some circumstances where this right needs to be violated for the purpoese of investigation of criminal activity; THEREFORE we propose that the government must prove the need to invade the privacy of it's citizens private correspondance if it feels this to be necessary. The warrant to intercept the mail for a specific person must A: Be brought before a court with the appropiate jurisdiction B: Specify the person or persons who will be being watched, and the reason for this survaliance C: Specify the term of the survaliance, not to excede six months The warrant can be issued in chambers, but must be made public either A: When the person or persons are brought to trial on the matter for which said warrent was issued or B: At the termination of the term of the warrent At this point, the subjects can bring civil action against the issuing body if the justification for said warrant does not support the issuance. |
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 the confidentiality of letters with grounded cause.
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 | 18:40:16, October 11, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Freedom to Correspond |
| Message | It seems that this is actually a step backwards. "Extreme situations" occur far less often than "grounded cause" does. |
| Date | 20:45:31, October 11, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Freedom to Correspond |
| Message | But extreme situations are at the defination of the government. Grounded causes require justification, and revelation as per the terms of the bill. I prefer openness. |
| Date | 16:19:24, October 12, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Freedom to Correspond |
| Message | I see. You have a point, but I have to wonder what the public would think if the PCP supported this. I'll wait for the positions of other parties. |
| Date | 00:13:20, October 13, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Freedom to Correspond |
| Message | There seems little to choose between your definition of grounded cause and 'extreme situations'. problem is, it needs to be more specific about what an extreme situation is. We support the power of the justice to read correspondance WITH THE KNOWLEDGE of one or both of the corresponants, but without their consent, if the need should arise. However, the undercover nature of this allows for the correspondants not to ever know they are being monitored, because the 'termination of the term or warrant' does not have to be until the justice wants it to be, so people can be under constant surveillance for years without being aware. This, we cannot allow to happen. The reading of letters etc in court is fine, but my point is that then the suspect knows of the interference and has a chance to put his/her justification forwards. |
| Date | 05:19:31, October 13, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Freedom to Correspond |
| Message | The AAP believes that 'extreme situations' is deliberately vague, so as to give the least 'inhibiting' interpretation... by preventing arguments over 'the letter' of the law, versus the 'intent' of the law. We believe 'grounded cause' is similarly vague... but carries a much lower 'risk level' than 'extreme situations'. The way the AAP sees it, the archaic Adultery Laws would provide 'grounded cause' for examination of personal mail... which is hardly an 'extreme situation'. As we see it... all 'extreme situations' require 'grounds' ALSO... we see no reason to lower the bar in this way. We support the right to privacy, as much as is reasonable. |
| Date | 14:39:18, October 13, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Freedom to Correspond |
| Message | to the LPE: I agree, that was an oversight on my part. The text has been changed to impose a maximum term. |
| Date | 23:06:28, October 13, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Freedom to Correspond |
| Message | With the opinion of the Anarch Anakrousite Party, we have reconsidered and now must state that we oppose this bill. |
| Date | 03:33:12, October 14, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Freedom to Correspond |
| Message | The AAP thanks the PCP for their attention. |
| Date | 14:10:49, October 14, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Freedom to Correspond |
| Message | As the elections are over, we will bring this to the attention of the Senate for a vote. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 161 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 166 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 173 |
| Random fact: "Jezvraljogadsrlji" means "Social" in the Jelbic languages. |
| Random quote: "The best politics is right action." - Mahatma Gandhi |