Previous Threads:

• Trial Request
• Trial

Verdict

While the charge in this trial was singular and straighforward, the arguments have been somewhat more extensive than would seem warranted. I will proceed to explain my reasoning for this verdict carefully.

SquareBlob and Godomasta, the current and former Mayors of Mount Augusta, stand accused of violation of the rights entitled to Figasaur under the Mount Augusta Bill of Rights part XIII (referred to as MABOR XIII later in this verdict):

XIII. Neither the right of every citizen of Mount Augusta to register to vote nor the right of every registered voter to vote shall be denied or abridged by anyone.

Note that here, two distinct rights are identified: both the right of registered voters to vote, and the right of citizens to register to vote. The right we are primarily concerned with in this trial is the right of citizens to register to vote.

The alleged criminal act under consideration

Figasaur was indeed banned from the Mount Augusta subreddit, where the voter registration thread can be found, and thus cannot post his registration there. Further, both defendants have the ability to remove this ban at any time. Despite having this power, and having been aware since the passage of MABOR XIII that Figasaur remains banned, neither defendant has chosen to remove the ban. These facts are agreed upon by both defense and prosecution, what is at issue is whether this choice not to remove the ban is a violation of Figasaur's rights.

Argument on validity of this trial

The defense's argument that they have already been tried for this act thus does not hold water, as the continued to refusal to remove the ban despite the passage under MABOR XIII constitutes a new act. Therefore, we must consider the arguments as to whether this act is a violation of MABOR XIII or not.

Argument from freedom of speech

The prosecution's argument that his ban from the subreddit constitutes a violation of his free speech rights under MABOR VIII (despite not having mentioned this in the charges portion of the trial), however that particular portion of the Bill of Rights reads: "Free speech and writing shall not be punished by the law ...". As a ban from the subreddit is not a punishment under the law, this right is not at issue and this argument can be dismissed out of hand.

Argument from eligibility to vote

This is the most substantial argument made by the defense. The argument made is that the plaintiff does not meet several eligibility requirements for voter registration.

In order to examine this argument fully, we must first recall the general framework under which the Bill of Rights is implemented. First, the statement describing how the rights are to be interpreted and applied from the very beginning of the Bill of Rights:

The government and citizens of the City State of Mount Augusta are obligated to respect, protect, promote, and fulfill these rights.

In addition, recall that the Bill of Rights is the supreme law of the land, per the Constitution's description of how to resolve Law Conflicts in Article II.C part (i):

All laws are superseded by the Bill of Rights should a conflict be found between a law and the Bill of Rights.

Keeping this in mind, recall again the wording of MABOR XIII:

XIII. Neither the right of every citizen of Mount Augusta to register to vote nor the right of every registered voter to vote shall be denied or abridged by anyone.

With all of this before us, it can be easily seen that no law of Mount Augusta can abridge the right of any citizen to register the vote, including the requirements for voter eligibility. In other words, the requirements for voter eligibility cannot be interpreted to abridge any citizen's right to vote. With this in mind, I will now examine each of the four eligibility requirements in turn:

a. Must own or rent property, as defined in Article IV, within the borders of Mount Augusta. Fulfilling this requirement is sufficient to gain citizenship.

This requirement is clearly setting a requirement for gaining citizenship. Since the right in question specifically addresses the rights of citizens to register, having restrictions on who can first become citizen does not abridge the rights of citizens to vote. However, nowhere in the law is there any provision for removing citizenship. Thus, once someone attains citizenship in the first place, this requirement is met in perpetuity from that point. The plaintiff, Figasaur, meets this requirement.

Note that should a future law be created to revoke citizenship from individuals, the entirety of MABOR XIII would no longer apply to them, and such a means of denying eligibility to vote would be constitutional.

b. Must not have outstanding (convicted but unserved or unpearled) criminal convictions made by the Mount Augusta justice system.

Unfortunately, this requirement plainly abridges a citizen's right to vote, and therefore is unconstitutional under current law. The fact that Figasaur is currently convicted to lifetime exile pearl for Treason cannot be used as a justification for abridging a right granted by the highest law in the land, the Bill of Rights. Therefore, not only does this fail to remove culpability from the defendants, but should Figasaur register to vote, a judge cannot rule the registration ineligible on this basis.

c. Must be able to attest to online activity by posting a screenshot of the eligibility sign, as specified in Article I Section A ii. d., showing a date within the last two (2) weeks.

It is the opinion of this court that some bookkeeping tasks are necessary and proper to maintaining a voter registry, and so long as the requirements are simple and reasonable, they cannot be interpreted as a violation of a citizen's right to register to vote. In particular, the requirement that the screenshot not be doctored or contain incorrect dates is reasonable, since the Bill of Rights does not define what a registration is in the first place. As long as the law defines a registration as a reasonable action in accordance with its dictionary definition, the mechanism of registration is in accord with the Bill of Rights. This requirement therefore does not abridge of the rights of citizens.

However, recall that per the Bill of Rights, all citizens are "obligated to respect, protect, promote, and fulfill" every other citizen's right to register to vote. Therefore, any attempt to prevent Figasaur, or any citizen, from accessing the voter tree in order to take a registration screenshot is a violation of the Bill of Rights and will be punishable under 600.01. This includes but is not limited to placing his pearl near the voter tree, blacklisting him from bastions while exiled, killing him to prevent his approach, or any other attempt to make the tree inaccessible to him.

d. Must not be currently banned from Mount Augusta's current host server.

It is the opinion of this court that a voter registry is impossible to keep in all cases for players who are banned from the server. However, it could also be interpreted as a violation of citizens rights who are banned. Fortunately, this particular element of the law is not at issue in this specific case, so this court will refrain from making any statement on the legality of this requirement at this time.

Argument from fulfilling other eligibility requirements first

As seen above, even if we accept that Figasaur must meet other requirements before his ban from the subreddit is at issue, we must still consider that Godomasta and Squareblob are obligated to "respect, protect, promote, and fulfill" his right to register. This means they must do everything in their power to not abridge Figasaur's rights. If they are insistent on not removing the ban, then they must personally assist Figasaur in posting his voter registration in the subreddit by proxy to avoid culpability for the ban. In other words, if you block one method of fulfilling the right, you must provide another one that is just as easy or easier than the one you have blocked.

Conclusion

Therefore, regarding the charge of 600.01 Violation of the Bill of Rights or Constitution, I find both defendants guilty of violating Figasaur's right to vote.

Sentencing and Reparations

The sentencing guidelines for 600.01 grant judges broad leeway in assigning reparations and pearl time.

Each defendant is hereby ordered to pay the defendant reparations of 32 diamonds (a total of 64 diamonds between the two defendants) within the next 7 days.

In addition, one or both defendants must either remove Figasaur's ban from the subreddit, or submit his voter registration on his behalf, within 48 hours of this verdict. Failure to comply will cause both defendants to be subject to exile pearl until this requirement has been fulfilled.

Final Words

This trial has been, per normal with these participants, lively. While we do not particularly appreciate the prosecution's comments that this court believes justice to be a "comedy routine", nor the accusations of collusion, they of course have no bearing on the due application of justice.

I know that this verdict will likely come as a surprise to the defendants, and other citizens as well, and I anticipate that further amendments to the law may be necessary in order to ensure that the democratic process in our city is being executed in a manner that all law-abiding citizens find to be fair. I welcome discourse on this topic in the coming days.

Thank you, and Bless Augusta.