Note: In this trial, I am using a style of legal citation wherein the name of the case is "plaintiff" v "defendant", followed by the bracketed year in which the request was made, and a number denoting the ordinal number of that case in the sequence of other cases made in that year of that name. Please contact me for clarification if necessary. This case may be referred to under this system as Figasaur v Godomasta (2019)1.

Introduction

1 Figasaur ( u/CivFigasaur ) was the plaintiff, representing themself, bringing a case against the defendant, Godomasta ( u/Godomasta ), also representing themself. The request for trial was made here on the 16th of February 2019 (GMT), and I, Judge AllenY, took the request and presided over the trial, from the 21st of February 2019 (GMT) to the 4th of March 2019 (GMT), here. I am hereby issuing judgment.

2 The plaintiff brought a charge of one count under the Mount Augusta Criminal Code 600.01 (“Violation of the Bill of Rights or Constitution”) against the defendant. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and thus I must find the defendant guilty or not guilty, and if guilty, I must sentence them.

3 Specifically, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant had banned them from r/MtAugusta, violating the Constitution of Mount Augusta Mount Augusta Bill of Rights I., III., VII. and VIII.

4 The fact that the plaintiff did in fact ban the defendant from r/MtAugusta was amply proven, and not contested; the judgment will focus on whether this action in fact constituted “[g]enerally, any blatant violation of a protection or provision of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, or other bill, resolution, or elevated legal document considered a binding contract on citizens and visitors to Mount Augusta” to the standard of “the preponderance of the evidence”, as per the Mount Augusta Criminal Code 600.01 1.-2.

The defendant on violation of the Constitution of Mount Augusta Mount Augusta Bill of Rights I.

5 I will first deal with the line of argument provided by the defendant in relation to the Constitution of Mount Augusta Mount Augusta Bill of Rights I., which I broadly rejected. The argument was essentially that the plaintiff could be banned because of their prior conviction; this meant that the “equal protection and benefit” no longer properly applied. it was succinctly summed up in the defendant’s cross-examination as “[t]he right to benefit of the law is stronger on the victims of criminal behaviour”, as an interpretation of the Constitution of Mount Augusta Mount Augusta Bill of Rights I. "All persons, citizen and noncitizen, are equal before the law and have the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.”

6 I concur with the extra-curial opinion given by the commentator Crimeo, that this interpretation is the “exact opposite” of the properly constructed meaning of the sentence. I have always taken a textual approach to the law of Mount Augusta while Judge, and even were it the case that “[t]his is the interpretation that makes our law work”, while I would be extremely wary in my interpretation because of its far-reaching implications, I would ultimately have to rule differently; I am an agent of the law, first and foremost.

7 What the provision means is that all laws of Mount Augusta may apply to all people, and people must be dealt with the same way under a law if their circumstances are the same. For example, regardless of whether a person is the Mayor or a noncitizen newfriend, they would act illegally if they murdered someone, in violation of a law that prevents murder. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that some special exception might apply to victims, or any other person.

The plaintiff on violation of the Constitution of Mount Augusta Mount Augusta Bill of Rights I.

8 This leads me into my discussion of the claim regarding this subsection as a whole. The plaintiff says in the presentation of evidence that the ban violates the Constitution of Mount Augusta Mount Augusta Bill of Rights I. because “numerous protections and benefits of the law REQUIRE /r/mtaugusta access”.

9 I have identified several sections of the Constitution of Mount Augusta where one might find their post on r/MtAugusta has legal effect. The Constitution of Mount Augusta Article I A. iii., B. i. b., Article II A. ii. a., Article IV C. ii. and vii. mention r/MtAugusta operatively.

10 The Constitution of Mount Augusta Article I A. iii. provides:

a. A citizen meeting voting eligibility requirements, who is currently not a registered voter, will gain voter registration three (3) days after posting proof of activity on an active voter registration thread, as outlined by Article I Section A i. c. The individual must fulfill the requirements outlined by Article I Section A i. for the entire period of three (3) days for voter registration to be granted.

11 If the plaintiff were a citizen meeting voting eligibility requirements, not currently a registered voter, they would gain voter registration three days after posting proof of activity on an active voter registration thread. Any other person who were a citizen, and who met these voting eligibility requirements, etc. would also gain voter registration following this same procedure. This is the meaning of “equal before the law”; the plaintiff will enjoy the benefit of being a registered voter as much as anyone else, should they post proof of activity on an active voter registration thread.

12 The point I mean to make here is that this section does not create a right to vote, or to be registered. What it does is say that a person who performs a certain set of actions will incur a certain effect. It is too far to read that there is a duty for people to enable voter registration from a provision that describes how one might obtain it, grave though the political consequence may be.

13 Consider if a law provided that a person would receive a certain number of emeralds if they gave a certain number of diamonds to the state. Would it be fair or logical to have the state give the emeralds even if the person did not provide diamonds, on the basis that all people have a right to the legal benefit conferred by the provision of diamonds? Of course this is a highly abstract scenario, but it illustrates the core principle I make with this first analysis; it is that where r/MtAugusta is mentioned, it is that legal benefits and protections are contingent on action, rather than freely granted. I am not at liberty to create wide-ranging and novel rights to access conditionals, and thus I cannot rule that the plaintiff has a right to access r/MtAugusta on the basis that conditionals in the Constitution of Mount Augusta make use of it. There is no implied right that one must be able to access the potential benefits or protections of a law, even if that law is the Constitution of Mount Augusta. The right that does exist is that if one fulfils legal conditions, one will access the benefits and protections the same as anyone else; it is a right to have the law applied without fear, favour or bias, where one meets it, and thus is a law that applies all other laws.

14 I will now run through the other opportunities for the use of r/MtAugusta identified, demonstrating that in all cases, no right requires access to it, but only provisions where one would have a cause of action only if one first fulfilled the criteria.

15 In the Constitution of Mount Augusta Article I B. i. b. it is said that “[e]ach voter shall present either a “yes” ("Aye") or “no” ("Nay") vote as a comment on the [Bill Vote] post. Only eligible voters as outlined in Section I, Subsection A may vote.” This delimits the way in which voting occurs, and restricts ineligible voters, but does not create any rights or privileges, except that one’s vote be valid if posted according to the conditions.

16 The Constitution of Mount Augusta Article II A. ii. a. says "[t]o contest the proposed border change, a post titled with "[Contest]" must be made on /r/MtAugusta within 48 hours of the publication of the border proposal by the Mayor. This thread will be treated as a regular vote for a border change as outlined in iii." This specifies how to create a border contest thread, and is within the context of specification on who may do so, but again, it does not specify that the ability to do so is protected.

17 The Constitution of Mount Augusta Article IV C. ii. says:

Those seeking ownership of a derelict property will: Place a sign at the property with their in-game name, the current date, and the word “Dereliction”. Make a post on the subreddit /r/MtAugusta declaring intention of dereliction. The post must contain [Dereliction] in the title, and a link to at least one screenshot of the property, showing relevant structures, the dereliction sign, and the coordinates of said property.

This specifies the procedure to those seeking ownership of a derelict property, in that one who does not follow it has not obtained the property, but it does not create a right to be able to do so.

18 The Constitution of Mount Augusta Article IV C. vii. says "[i]f a property owner will have an extended absence from Civcraft and reddit, the posting of a sign or a post to /r/MtAugusta will exempt their property from dereliction for a period of 3 months." As again demonstrated, here especially by the “if”, this is a privilege contingent on posting, without protecting the posting itself.

19 Thus, no violation of the first item of the Constitution of Mount Augusta Mount Augusta Bill of Rights has taken place; in the same way that, as the defendant noted, pearling prevents voter registration, the defendant’s actions prevented the fulfilment of some other privileging actions. Both of these are legal, because the laws do not create a right to be given access to these privileges (and to avoid bans from r/MtAugusta or being pearled by the state), only a right to be treated the same once one has fulfilled legal preconditions.

Violation of the Constitution of Mount Augusta Bill of Rights III.

20 I will then deal with the claim that the Constitution of Mount Augusta Bill of Rights III. (“All persons have inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected”) was violated by the defendant’s banning of the plaintiff from r/MtAugusta.

21 Dignity in OxfordDictionaries.com is given in the relevant definition as “[t]he state or quality of being worthy of honour or respect”, and in the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary as “the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed”. A violation of dignity tends to refer to those actions which especially and specifically harass, humiliate or damage the reputation of a person, as in Godomasta v Figasaur (2019)1, or ComradeNick v Ez2Clutch (2019)1. The ban was not publicised, was a single action rather than a repeated course, and was undertaken directly to prevent the plaintiff from posting, which they had been doing. Thus, I would not consider it to have been done in violation of dignity.

Violation of the Constitution of Mount Augusta Mount Augusta Bill of Rights VII.

22 I will then deal with the claim that the Constitution of Mount Augusta Mount Augusta Bill of Rights VII. (“All persons have the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion”) was violated.

23 Where this right grants the “freedom” of these, it means that no legal action can be taken against the exercise of its contents. Thus, I must first find whether a ban on r/MtAugusta constitutes an action within the legal system or not.

24 r/MtAugusta is moderated by a wide range of people, perhaps most of which do not play on CivClassics; however that many recent Mayors are also moderators is not a coincidence, nor is it that r/MtAugusta is mentioned in the Constitution of Mount Augusta. Yet, beyond being mentioned as a communicative utility, there is no law surrounding it; the laws of Mount Augusta are contained in posts duly voted upon or legally decreed, and publicised in the usual place on r/MtAugusta. Those who run r/MtAugusta often do, but also often do not have relation to Mount Augusta. To elevate an administrative action on a privately-run subreddit to Mount Augusta law is not valid, even if the subreddit is closely associated; private people are free to associate or disassociate, and alienate or unalienate from whom they will, and that is what has happened here with a ban. There is no violation.

Violation of the Constitution of Mount Augusta Mount Augusta Bill of Rights VIII.

25 I will then deal with the claim that the Constitution of Mount Augusta Mount Augusta Bill of Rights VIII. (“Free speech and writing shall not be punished by the law… ”) was violated.

26 While there are exceptions mentioned, I do not consider them relevant, because immediately, as discussed before, the phrase “punished by the law” invalidates the activation of this part. Bans on r/MtAugusta are not done by law, but by the discretion of private people.

On the Constitution of Mount Augusta Mount Augusta Bill of Rights II.

27 While the plaintiff noted these four sections of the Constitution of Mount Augusta Mount Augusta Bill of Rights most specifically, they also asserted that a wide range of other sections were violated. I will examine one that was discussed, as I generally did not find any others relevant; no section had justification for protecting access to a mere procedure, nor did the plaintiff assert this sufficiently.

28 The Constitution of Mount Augusta Mount Augusta Bill of Rights II. gives:

The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including but not limited to race, gender, sex, marital status, ethnic or social origin, color, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and place of birth.

I have already ruled that the actions of moderators on r/MtAugusta do not constitute law, and “[t]he state” is another wording of this idea, meaning the legal authority of Mount Augusta and the exercise of that legal authority by its holders. The section is not relevant.

Conclusion

29 In conclusion, the various claims of the plaintiff that the Constitution of Mount Augusta has been violated are unfounded. In the first instance, it is because there is textually no right to be not be banned from r/MtAugusta, obstructive though this may be. In the second instance, this is not an offence against dignity, by the term’s own definition. In the third, fourth, and fifth instances, this was because an action taken on r/MtAugusta is not an action of law or of the state. The legal reasoning was supported by nonbinding but additionally suasive analogous (for example, in pearling) and direct (definition of “dignity”) precedent. The plaintiff’s case has not executed a burden of preponderance of the evidence with regards to “[g]enerally, any blatant violation of a protection or provision of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, or other bill, resolution, or elevated legal document considered a binding contract on citizens and visitors to Mount Augusta.” (from the Mount Augusta Criminal Code 600.01 1.)

30 Before I end this verdict, however, I want to speak to the Constitution of Mount Augusta Preamble. "Since its founding, the city of Mount Augusta has striven to be a guardian of fairness, justice, and democracy. It is to this end that we, the people of Mount Augusta establish, reaffirm, and solidify the rights of all persons who live and travel within our beloved city." I am aware that because elections take place on r/MtAugusta, and because I am about to rule it legal to ban from r/MtAugusta, elections could effectively be banned, or manipulated to meaninglessness. Though not to simplify democracy to purely elections, this is clearly at odds with democracy, and thus imposes a heavy burden of gravity on this judgment. Yet, I maintain its correctness, because the law has never been about the glossing over of those aspects which one would prefer to ignore; it was through democratic processes that the Constitution of Mount Augusta I currently interpret was arrived at, and it is through democratic processes that I may adjudge here. The law, duly passed and interpreted, is the crystalline will of the people in a democratic system, and to bend it would be to do harm to the principles on which the City is built. I admit to textual interpretation of the law; this is the interpretation that the text has led me to, and thus it is the one I pronounce, despite its implications. This is first and foremost because the alternative interpretations are incorrect, and not the law. I also only state the obvious when I say that it is up to the people to change the law to make it reflect their will.

31 I have found the defendant, Godomasta, not guilty on the one charge of Mount Augusta Criminal Code 600.01 (“Violation of the Bill of Rights or Constitution”). Here ends the verdict. Lex paciferat.