Lawsuit: Adjourned SIMP v. Government [2020] FCR 4

[bharatj]

Hello your honor, my name is bharatj, and I am here on behalf of the Shrektacular Independent Movement Party. Earlier today, the DPA Secretary, MistyRoses had denied our party application for some questionable reasons that I would like to bring to the attention of the court.

The screenshots attached are evidence of MistyRoses threatening to deny our party registration because she didn't like our party name, and judged the people within are party due to the nature of our party name.

I would like the defense to bring up any sort of evidence allowing the government to exhibit prejudice and make official government decisions on the basis of personal beliefs and connections with a name that had no intention of being vulgar or offensive. Simply because MistyRoses associated our party name with something else, does not give the government a right to censor and/or deny a party registration.

This also brings up a couple other concerns outside of our own party registration:

The DPA secretary essentially has unlimited power to either censor or allow beliefs to be represented in court, as they can "approve" or "deny" political parties as they please. If a party member ascends to this position, they are essentially given the power to censor the voices of opposing parties and belief systems, which is very dangerous for a democracy.

On what basis can a political party be denied at all? Be it its name, beliefs, or members. Any denial of representation of beliefs is in essence a death sentence to the democracy that this server prides itself to have. Due to the reasons mentioned above, and although this is out of the jurisdiction of the court system, I would like the government to look into moving party registrations out of all branches of government and allow for an independent committee to look into party registrations. If that is not possible, and if the government would like to argue that causes of denial would be the same regardless of who approves/denies party registrations, allow me to say this. Why should political parties have to be approved or denied at all? A political party is merely a collaboration between multiple like minded people with the intention of representing their beliefs in the government. Just because a party exists, doesn't mean they will be elected and/or appointed into the government. If a party is a joke, as the government claims, then give the party an opportunity to either succeed or fail. A party with no good intentions will fail to recieve support from an intelligent voting population, and a party that seeks to represent the people well, only leads to better representation. What's the loss there? The current system is basically institutionalized censorship.

I would also like to remind the court that this case allows precedents to be set depending on how the court rules. The court may either establish and/or reinforce its independence as a branch of government, and as an institution that holds checks over the executive branch, or it can establish itself as a branch inferior to that of the executive, with all power of interpretation limited by what the other branches allow the courts to interpret. The court may take the side of individual and collective freedom, or they may take the side of censorship and official decisons based on personal views.
I would like the court to consider all that is at stake in this case and rule to allow personal opinions to be addressed and to allow the people's voices to be heard.

Thank you.

 

[Element]

MistyRoses is hereby summoned to the court of DemocracyCraft to testify on behalf of the Government. If MistyRoses (or another Government Representative) does not testify within 24 hours, the case will be adjourned in favor of the plaintiff and the party will be registered.

 

[End]

Your honour, I will be representing the Government in this case. The Department of Public Affairs has been in talks recently as to what constitutes a political party application rejection. As such, the policy defining this was revised which provides clarification for this decision. This was added to the application registration information thread.

All legitimate parties need to be registered with the Department of Public Affairs. The Department reserves the right to de-register and deny a political party in the following circumstances:

• - the party has ceased to exist;
• - the original registration was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation;
  - the party does not maintain an up-to-date forums information thread;
• - the party has failed to endorse candidates for congressional election for a period of 6 months;
• - the party breaches server rules and or laws; or
• - at the request of the party.
  - proposals including offensive or unrealistic proposals. (This includes, but is not limited to; political party names and agendas)

This was not a personal opinion, it was direction provided by myself to the Department of Public Affair Secretary to preserve the realism of political parties.

The reasoning provided by the DPA Secretary has the Government's full support:

"The SIMP Party's application has been denied. Unless the name and the acronym are made more appropriate, your application will not be accepted. I'm sorry, and I hope that you will reapply once you have made suitable changes. Thank you for your time"

I make the argument that 'Shrektacular' and 'SIMP' are not appropriate. The alternate 'PIMP' and 'ASS' changes were neither appropriate.

For your consideration,

 

[Element]

The court hereby summons both parties to provide their closing statements. If neither provide statements within 24 hours, the case will be dismissed. If one provides a statement but not the other, the case will be adjourned in favor of the party who made a statement.

 

[MistyRoses]

Your honour, due to the President's unexpected absence, the acting president and I decided that I will be making the closing statement on behalf of the Government.

The Government of Democracy Craft strives to protect the realism of the server as a whole. One way the Department of Public Affairs tries to achieve this goal is by protecting the realism and seriousness of the political parties on the server.

Due to the inappropriateness and immaturity perceived through the name of the party in question, the Department of Public Affairs refused their political party application.

We encourage everyone on the server to have opinions and we embrace that individuality as long as the voicing of those opinions does not impede the rights of other citizens. And we believe that the name and acronym for the SIMP party can make for an uncomfortable environment for players.

We apologize if this was not clear to the party beforehand, but hopefully the updated policy will help prevent future incidents like this to occur.

The Government still fully stands behind the reasoning provided to the party's leader:

"The SIMP Party's application has been denied. Unless the name and the acronym are made more appropriate, your application will not be accepted. I'm sorry, and I hope that you will reapply once you have made suitable changes. Thank you for your time"

Again, the use of "Shrektacular" and SIMP have been argued to be inappropriate. And the alternatives provided, "PIMP" and "ASS" have also been argued as inappropriate.

For your consideration,

MistyRoses

Moderator | Secretary of Public Affairs​

 

[Element]

Since the plaintiff has requested an extension due to real-world issues, the court will be granting him a 24 hour extension to file his closing statement.

 

[SpriteTropical]

I will be filling in for bharatj as he is busy with real life issues.


The fact is this: The DPA associated our party name with something else. Especially when this wasn't our intention, it shouldn't be used as an attempt to silence our beliefs.

Immaturity and inappropriateness regarding the name is simply subjective. We had a logo. We had the support required. We had the money required. We even thought out stances for our party, and developed them well. All of that, and they deny us because of something as small as our name?

The Government claims that we made our party as a joke-- but how can they accurately judge it if they weren't part of the making? We didn't make our name to joke around; our name was designed to stand out, and I believe we have accomplished this. If that was our intent, the Government shouldn't be able to write our beliefs and our party off as a mere joke. We even offered to change it as a compromise, but our proposed edits didn't even suit the Government.

The argument that the name "SIMP", (especially when it's never used as a serious insult, especially when the same people that are defending the Government had to look up an outdated definition of it and thought that "poggers" was an insult) will create an uncomfortable environment is a complete and total exaggeration.


Moreover, I'd like to point at a conflict of interest: If a DPA minister is part of a polutical party, how can they fairly judge another party? Even if the DPA minister doesn't belong to a political party, this sets a dangerous precedent for democracy.

The Government has censored our political party based on misconceptions and has refused to accept our compromises that we offered. With potential conflicts of interest at hand, and with us providing explanation after explanation that fell on deaf ears behind our party, the Government is at fault here.

 

[Element]

After some consideration, I have decided to adjourn this case in favor of the defendant, the Government of DemocracyCraft. This is due to the fact that:
a) The official definition of “SIMP” is inappropriate
b) The defendant claimed that the alternatives were offered, but rejected. This is true, however both alternatives "PIMP" and "ASS" are also inappropriate if we are going by textbook definitions.