Lawsuit: Adjourned Greenish9 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 5

Status
Not open for further replies.

Greenish9

Citizen
Aventura Resident
Greenish9
Greenish9
Joined
Mar 28, 2022
Messages
27
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Greenish9
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM PLAINTIFF
Section IV Clause X of the Constitution of DemocracyCraft states that there will be the right to freedom of the press and media. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the freedom of the press as “the right of newspapers, magazines, etc., to report news without being controlled by the government.” The defendant(the government) violated this through restriction of a newspaper business’s business application and restricting their access to news distribution accessible to other newspapers. This sets a dangerous precedent for the government to get involved in press matters.

I. PARTIES
1. Greenish9
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. Greenish9 applied for a business application for his newspaper, The Donkey Times.
2. Their application was rejected for potentially being “politically-charged”
3. This made it so they couldn’t access distributing news to the wider public and even if they did conform to the DEC’s restriction their newspaper would still be restricted from being able to access wider distribution for two whole weeks.

III. CLAIM FOR RELIEF
1. Violation of Section IV Clause X of the Constitution of DemocracyCraft by the Commonwealth of Redmont

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Registration of the Donkey Times
2. Rescission of any restrictions against the press by the Commonwealth of Redmont
3. A public apology by a member of cabinet.
4. $2000 compensation for disruption this has caused a potential business and the reputation damaged by the accusation that this newspaper will create animosity.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 21st day of April 2022
 

Attachments

  • delete_later.jpeg
    delete_later.jpeg
    109.5 KB · Views: 89
1650583649450.png

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The Attorney General is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of the Greenish9 v. Commonwealth of Redmont 2022 [SCR] 5.

Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Greenish9
PLAINTIFF

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
DEFENDANT

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

A. AFFIRM The Plaintiff’s business application was denied by the DEC
B. DISPUTE That application denials violate Section 4 Clause 8 of the constitution

II. DEFENSES
  1. The plaintiff does not justify the reason for which the right to Freedom of the Press and Media is being violated, rather has been continually attempting to claim that rejecting an application from an information company is automatically a violation of that right.
  2. The rejection of an application for a press/ media company must not be considered an inherent violation of the right granted under the constitution ensuring Freedom of the Press and Media. Applications serve the purpose of maintaining government standards to ensure stability and integrity in our media and news publication companies. Misinformation and much more would be subsequent should application denials be found to be in violation of the constitution
  3. By denying the Plaintiff’s business registration the government has not denied rights, censored, or targeted the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has many avenues outside of government resources to distribute news they see fit, whether it be in-game or through Discord, but has failed to meet minimum standards to utilize government resources. The government has a right to set standards for any resource which might be made available to companies, and has done so in regards to #news.
  4. Constitutional rights are not absolute, and may be shaped by the government in respect to the essential content of that right. Essential content being defined as those powers or possibilities of action necessary for the right to be recognizable as belonging to the type described under the constitution. By denying the Plaintiff’s registration the government has not violated such right, and has shown respect to the essential content of that right while still maintaining standards for our resources.
By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 23rd day of April 2022
 
Your honor, Kanne has not shown any proof that the Attorney General agrees that they represent them in court.
 
Your honor, I am a State Prosecutor and I am authorized by the Attorney General.
 
Considering the fact that Kanne is a member of the Office of the Attorney General, I trust that he does have proper authority, however, if Kanne is not authorized to work on this case, you may be held in direct contempt of this court.

Greenish9 may now present his opening statement. Please provide one within 48 hours or face being held in direct contempt.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Greenish9
PLAINTIFF

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
DEFENDANT

OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor,

In their Answer to Complaint, the defendant used terms such as “misinformation” and “integrity.” If the government gets to reject news sources on the basis of misinformation and integrity that means they get to choose what is misinformation and what isn’t. Considering this is the Supreme Court, that’s not exactly a good precedent set. Additionally, the defendant said “The plaintiff does not justify the reason for which the right to Freedom of the Press and Media is being violated, rather has been continually attempting to claim that rejecting an application from an information company is automatically a violation of that right.” I, as the plaintiff, do not need to justify the defendants actions to prove they happened or are wrong. The defendant has also failed to properly address my arguement for why it’s a violation of the freedom of the press and media.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 26th day of April 2022
 
The State has 48 hours to provide its opening statement.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Greenish9
PLAINTIFF

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
DEFENDANT

OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor, opposing counsel,

As we have pointed out in previous statements, in our opinion, the government, as long as it respects the essential content of the right to freedom of the press and media, can, in the name of its discretionary power, accept or reject applications of press/media companies. Administrative discretion is undoubtedly a power of the government that refers to the margins of appreciation, option and decision of the government in those cases in which not all the elements of the administrative power are specified by the norm that attributes it, being able to choose between several solutions. It is, therefore, freedom of choice between alternatives or between legal indifferences not included in the law.

Within that margin of discretion, the government can deny an application from an information company. No law or regulation requires the government to accept applications from such companies. The rejection of the plaintiff’s company, by the discretion of the government, was rejected for obvious reasons: The ownership of the business was unclear and the application lacked components which are essential to gain access to the #news channel.

As we have already advanced in our answer to the complaint, the government, in exercising this power, has the right to establish standards for any resource that may be made available to companies and has done so with respect to the #news channel.

Also, we would like to include that the plaintiff can still run his company, just not on outlets owned and/or operated by the government, like the #news channel. Therefore, there is no type of censorship that has taken place: Simply because the company does not meet the standards, it does not have access to the #news channel. As stated previously, the government has not blocked the Plaintiff from sharing news or media, it simply temporarily disallowed the Plaintiff from gaining access to a government resource until an application which matched government standards for that resource was met.​


By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 28th day of April 2022
 
Thank you both for providing your opening statements.

The court now calls upon each party to provide a list of witnesses or qualified testimonials. Please provide a list within the next 24 hours.
 
The Commonwealth has no witnesses or qualified testimonials to call.
 
The Plaintiff has no witnesses or testimonials to call upon.
 
The plaintiff may now present their closing statement. Please provide one within the next 48 hours.
 
Your honor, may I have a 48 hour extension. I’ve been really busy IRL.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Greenish9
PLAINTIFF

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
DEFENDANT

CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honor,

In their opening statement the defendant has written that "there is no type of censorship that has taken place." even though it has. There are two types of censorship, Direct and Indirect. Direct censorship is jailing a journalist for opposing the government. Indirect censorship is making it much harder or unlikely to see the journalist's work. So censorship has taken place, Indirect censorship. Furthermore, the defendant has stated that the government has the right to set standards for the use of the #news channel and in their opening statement it is easy to see that one of these standards is based on their definition of what is misinformation. The government should not be able to define misinformation because in the wrong hands this could be used for laws that censor news organizations based on "misinformation."

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 4th day of May 2022
 
Thank you Greenish. The state now has 48 hours to provide the court with its closing statement.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Greenish9
PLAINTIFF

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
DEFENDANT

CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honor, opposing counsel,
We cannot help insisting on our previous arguments. Furthermore, indirect censorship, in our opinion, would be not allowing publishing of any news until an acceptance by the DEC is made, what has really happened is the plaintiff was denied access to a single government resource until he met the same requirements which all others with access to that channel had to meet. Media companies are not entitled to every single resource at the government’s disposal no regulation, otherwise, it would be free for all and there would be no need to have applications since any denial, justified or not, would be seen as a constitutional violation. It would also blur the line between what is accurate and what is not, and if our citizens cannot trust what is posted in the #news channel, it would prove meaningless, likely to be replaced with an alternative for government officials only so as to prevent any spread of misinformation.​

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 5th day of April 2022
 
The Supreme Court now stands in recess while the Supreme Court discusses its decision.
 

Verdict



IN THE COURT OF COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

VERDICT

Case [2022] SCR 5

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION

- The application to be a registered business at the DEC was rejected for being potentially "politically-charged". This would be a violation of Section IV Clause X of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont.
- News sources should not be rejected on misinformation and integrity. This would mean that the Government can decide what news is minsinformation and what not.
- Indirect censorship, making it much harder or unlikely to see the journalist's work, has taken place.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION

- The Government can in the name of its discretionary power accept or reject applications of press/media companies. But this needs to be with respect for the essential content of the right to freedom of press and media.
- The application was rejected for obvious reasons: The ownership of the Business was unclear and the application lacked components which are essential to gain acces to the #news channel.
- The Government has the right to establish standards for any resource that may be made available to companies.
- The company can still run and so no censorship has taken place. Indirect Censorship would have taken place when DEC prohibits the company from functioning.
- Media companies are not entitled to every resource of the government.

III. COURT'S OPINION

- The Supreme Court ruled that there was no violation of the section IV Clause X of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont. The fact that they can't use the #news channel does not mean they are prohibited from functioning in our society. They are still free to post what they want in other ways. A violation on this clause would mean that a news company would be prohibited in its entirety from functioning.
- It's the opinion of the majority of the Supreme Court (2-1) that the news channel is a resource of the government and therefore can install rules on whether to accept a specific company if they meet the standards. The standards/rules whatsoever should not be impossible to meet and should be well-explained how to meet them.
- The application was rejected for the right reasons because the rules set forth by the Government were not met.
- Every company is not entitled to every resource of the government.

Remarks of Justice Wuutie:

This case contains the following: Was there no freedom off press and are the rights of a person being violated here? Right 10 laid out in the constitution: Freedom of Press and Media has been not violated at this instance. The News source is not forbidden to release press in the world and being denied to the channel, #news, is not a violation of that. A registration of the news source would have meant that the news company could use the channel. The DEC is entitled to deny that if they believe they don’t follow the rules laid out by the DEC concerning that channel. A violation of this right would have taken place when the company would have been forbidden to release any press. The #news channel is also not dominated in the news world like Onyx Exchange has a press channel that has more than 200 members. However, being there is a nice tool to have. Other channels: Democracy daily with more than 150 members where news is released. #News is therefore not a monopoly or too dominant in the News world. This would have been a bad precedent as well in the future of the News world because it would have been opened up to biased- and bad news. But most important that every news company should have been accepted to the DEC and so the #news channel. The DEC decided that the Plaintiff’s company does not meet the requirements of being registered and therefore it has been rightfully denied. In a conclusion: if the News company does not meet the requirements set forth by the DEC, then this will not be an infringement on the right of Freedom of Press and Media.

Second, Right XIII. Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status. This right can’t be used in this situation because it states that every citizen is equal under the law. This does not mean that every citizen has the right to access government resources because someone else got that. An example: The Government gave out a grant to person A, but declined a grant to person B. Then person B can’t use this right because this is about a resource or opportunity. The right is most important in how we treat people in society. When the Right is stated equal before and under every opportunity this case would have merit. To conclude, the process of such applications needs to be equal but the outcome of an application does not need to be equal.

Remarks of Justice JoeGamer:

The Equal Protections Clause of the Redmont Constitution, Freedom XIII, is a simple yet powerful one. “Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.” This core freedom in the Commonwealth of Redmont is short, simple, and to the point. Everyone in Redmont is guaranteed equal protection under the law. Even at that, the writers of the Constitution explicitly states “Equal before and under the law…without unfair discrimination based on political belief.” Even if a party were in complete control of the legislative and executive, it is the Court's duty to provide equal protections to all citizens of Redmont, regardless of one’s political beliefs.
This is where I fundamentally disagree with the notion of the majority. The majority opinion believes that the Equal Protections Clause doesn’t apply because it’s a use of a government source. This could not be further from the truth. There are two sections in which the government has some role over: registration of a company and the use of #news.
The Department of Education and Commerce is tasked with the management of the business of Redmont. Whether a general supply store or a news publication, the DEC runs the registration of these businesses. With the registration of a business, companies gain access to many benefits: use of the business portal for their own business, government grants, use of /cm, the ability to make chest shops with their company, and billboard application. All of these benefits can be utilized with a registered business. Regardless of being a news source, businesses registered with the government get access to these benefits. Non Registered businesses get none of these benefits. By denying a business registration, the DEC also denies a business access to the things listed above.
The final point to address in the section is whether equal protections were violated. A simple way to find out is to see if a government has allowed business that has taken position on political views to be registered. After a quick search it wasn’t hard to find an accepted business called Democratic Reformist Party that was made “for the purposes of the organization's business activities.” Or perhaps Crown Media whose billboard application was accepted. These billboards contained information about the Democratic Reformist Party and in their business application stated “Crown Magazine specialize in political and economic rankings and is also known for its Crown Person of the Month series.” So the DEC has accepted businesses that take political stances on issues, including news companies which publicly advocate for the Democratic Reformist Party. Of course this is not a limiting list. Companies before have endorsed certain policies, candidates for Congress. The DEC has accepted business which are political, but why not The Donkey Times? The Donkey Times is just as political as Crown Media is? So why is the DEC discriminating against The Donkey Times. The DEC doesn’t deny every company that takes a political position, yet they chose to deny The Donkey Times “The DEC will not endorse politically charged news.” The government has a duty to provide equal protections under the law, and the DEC has failed to do this.
Now that the application being denied has been addressed, another think to look at is the use of #news. Going back to why the DEC initially rejected “The DEC will not endorse politically charged news.” Interesting choice of words. So one would assume that by this statement, the DEC wouldn’t allow any biased new source into #news. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
There are a couple things to address when talking about bias and unbiased news reporting. I believe that no news source is truly unbiased. Tech once said in #news “no one is ever truly centrist.” Going off those lines, no one is truly unbiased. Everyone has their bias. From the owner of news companies to the writers and editors. To say that one is truly unbiased is a lie. Choosing what or what not to report on is a way of bias. The media moves the national conversation. By reporting on one issue, one brings that issue to light. By not reporting on one issue, that issue doesn’t get much attention. Even if the article is factually correct, by choosing to report on it, it brings the political conversation to light. Another thing to look at is who owns these news publications. Democracy Daily is owned by Westray, the president of the Commonwealth. Can one really say that the president has no bias? Or look at the contributors that work for Democracy Daily. Xue100 was the leader of a political party. Representative Wetc is the chairman of the Mad Hatter Party. Are they really unbiased? Crown Media is run by End, the leader of the DRP. Is End really unbiased? There are more news companies out there, but the fact remains, no one is truly unbiased. Final thing to look at is opinion pieces. Opinion pieces have made there way into #news by major news publications. Of course opinion pieces aren’t unbiased. They are quite literally the opinion of someone.
Looking back at the above paragraph, it’s clear the DEC isn’t really worried that #news will be used for the spread of bias reporting. It’s clear and evident that bias has made its way into #news, yet the DEC has continued to allow these media groups to continue to use #news. So this really isn’t about “endorse[ing] politically charged news.” The government has a duty to uphold the constitution and this includes providing equal protections and not discriminating on the basis of political affiliation. Unfortunately that is exactly what happened when the DEC rejected The Donkey Times when they didn’t want to “endorse politically charged news.”
A couple of caveats and things to address. First, I am not saying that the DEC must accept every business application. Of course there are grounds to which the DEC can deny a business application as long as they equally judge each application. If the DEC denied or deregistered every company that affiliated itself with a political group or a set of policies, then this would be fine from an equal protection standpoint. Second, #news is not the government endorsing certain news. If it is then the government is at odds with itself. Third, while this lawsuit never mentions the equal protections clause of the Constitution, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution, so while it wasn’t mentioned in the lawsuit, it is still the responsibility of the Supreme Court to look at each case with the entirety of Constitution, not just what was mentioned in this case.

Finally, this lawsuit explicitly addresses the Freedom of Press and Media. While the plaintiff has argued hard that this is a violation, the government has not actively suppressed The Donkey Times. There are still other ways to get news published without the use of #news which includes but is by no means limited to: books in chestshop and a private Discord server. There are rules for #news and as long as articles a) follow the rules set by staff and b) follow the rules set by the DEC (again these rules must apply equally to all media publication, not just one company) then #news is not a guaranteed resource provided by the government. It’s a nice resource to have, but there are other ways to get news out.

Remarks of the Speaker of the House of Representatives A__C:

This case revolves around Section IV Clause X of the Constitution, Freedom of the Press and Media, as this was the claim for relief by the plaintiff. This case was, however, not a violation of the right of freedom of the press and media because the government has not suppressed or controlled the plaintiff’s news company, only restricted it from the #news channel until it meets the standards set by the DEC. The plaintiff is still able to write news articles and post it whether it be on Discord or in-game. Forcing the DEC to accept every single news company on the basis of granting access to the #news channel or be considered in violation of the Freedom of the Press and Media right is a bad precedent to set. Although Justice JoeGamer has argued that the equal protections clause of the Constitution was violated, the case has no mention of this clause, and so my verdict also does not include arguments surrounding this right.

IV. VERDICT

The Court rules in favor of the Defendant (2(Wuutie,A__C)-1(JoeGamer)).

The Court thanks each party for his time. This case is now adjourned.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top