ThaeciaBoard

Emazia wrote:

That depends. Would you support a constitutional amendment that would do that?

While imo it still violates free speech in a way, would MUCH prefer a constitutional amendment that suppresses hate speech and directly shown hatred towards ideologies, rather than a literal purge of people who might make a joke about being right wing. UCP is only doing this because of his mute

United cascadian peoples wrote:

Addressing Diz:
Not being toxic, I tried to work through an issue I found in the region by proposing a bill to solve said issue. This is the way the region is meant to work, and so I am proposing legislation that could meaningfully make our region live up to the tags that we identify with.

If this bill is unconstitutional and folks think that it goes against our community's goals, I'd move that we remove the Anti-fascist tag from our region

The anti-fascist tag shows that we as a people do not support fascism, and we will refuse to ally with fascist regions or gain embassies, but the tag doesn't mean that we're going to destroy people's free speech when they might just be harmless but right wing

United cascadian peoples wrote:

All it says is if they identify with fascism, they will be banned. I am very confused as to why this is a bill that is receiving heated debate. Do we not oppose fascists suddenly?

If you want to know why we oppose the bill, and why the fact that someone saying 'I am fascist' isn't cause for an instantaneous ban, then I'd suggest you read the debate

Brototh wrote:

While imo it still violates free speech in a way, would MUCH prefer a constitutional amendment that suppresses hate speech and directly shown hatred towards ideologies, rather than a literal purge of people who might make a joke about being right wing. UCP is only doing this because of his muteThe anti-fascist tag shows that we as a people do not support fascism, and we will refuse to ally with fascist regions or gain embassies, but the tag doesn't mean that we're going to destroy people's free speech when they might just be harmless but right wing

I mean, i would have considered his thing to be more workable since it's a lot more targeted and possibly even less unconstitutional than what I would've preferred, but I'll get to working on that soon.

The peoples caribbean union wrote:

#givetitannebanjectorpollpowers

Oh yes polls too please and thank you Andusre

😘

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/519588794182139914/738181277013770362/unknown.png said this on discord

anti-fascist tag is about embassies :whistles:

Dizgovzy wrote:

We oppose the restriction of free speech and legislation that a) blatantly violates the constitution, b) was only written because of a mute handed out for being too toxic about this same issue.

Respectfully, it’s time to stop.

Again, I appreciate you believing that you understand the reasoning for my bill. I must not be aware of my own intentions, and should defer my own reasoning for writing said bill to you.

Brototh wrote:

I'd rather you don't suddenly shoot down all of our free speech for being right wing and potentially harmless, and instead just outlaw hate speech. This is, yet again, a terrible bill.

I never said right wing, the bill explicitly states that we should ban Fascists.

United cascadian peoples wrote:

Again, I appreciate you believing that you understand the reasoning for my bill. I must not be aware of my own intentions, and should defer my own reasoning for writing said bill to you.

I appreciate you refusing to actually debate our points and instead just shoot low blows at us that aren't relevant <3 classic UCP style debating !

Brototh wrote:

I appreciate you refusing to actually debate our points and instead just shoot low blows at us that aren't relevant <3 classic UCP style debating !

Ah yeah deleted post was a rude post :/ and i dont debate that way

post self deleted by Dizgovzy

Korsinia wrote:

I feel like codifying the procedure of how the ban is to go about greatly slows down our abilities to carry out the ban
Essentially you want the PM or President to hold the supreme power to authorise the ban

What if both parties are not available at the necessary time? What if both parties disagree and allow the fascist to continue residing in the region?

Also if someone wants to challenge their ban in court it would have to be done by another person in the region as the banned nation will lose resident and citizenship status
Bringing in puppets is also grounds for ban due to ban evasion
So what is exactly being achieved by this bill?

I think the beginning part is definitely a good point, and I'd be fine with sorting out a proper and quicker way (maybe stating that any member of the Admin team can ban).
The latter part is not specifically for puppets or the originally banned nation, but was meant to lay out a way that you, for example, could ask Emazia to appeal your ban with the High Court if you felt that it was undue.

Brototh wrote:

:okthenliberal:
You did say a different bill shortly afterwards, but yet again, this bill is just designed to assassinate political opponents at worst, and at best punch a hole in free speech

Well I'm afraid it's because NS rules are much more lenient on fascists than you think. I would know. I've debated a few.