NSG Senate Lobby: Four Scones and Seven Pastries Ago

[The Nihilistic view]

So Dendart's senator is going to be killed now? nice.

You think the word of an old man who had a stroke is going to stand up in court?

Well you have changed your tune, yesterday it was all Habeas corpus and Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. Today it's, fuck him, I don't care if the ANG have conducted an improper arrest.

[Kouralia]

So Dendart's senator is going to be killed now? nice.

Who's going to kill him?

NIB probably.

[Britanno]

Well you have changed your tune, yesterday it was all Habeas corpus and Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. Today it's, fuck him, I don't care if the ANG have conducted an improper arrest.

All I remember is criticising people who seemed to assume Tom was guilty. That was IC. This is OOC.

[The Nihilistic view]

Well you have changed your tune, yesterday it was all Habeas corpus and Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. Today it's, fuck him, I don't care if the ANG have conducted an improper arrest.

All I remember is criticising people who seemed to assume Tom was guilty. That was IC. This is OOC.

Well at least you are consistent in your judgments.

[Mediciano]

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=286544&p=19718553#p19718553

Am I the only one who sees the faults in this logic? "You promised anonymity to a news source, therefore you are complicit in murder."

Senator Machiavelli hasn't supported, aided or in anyway enabled the terrorists to do what they did.

Not only that, but news organizations aren't required to divulge their sources. The European Court of Human Rights stated in the 1996 case of Goodwin v. United Kingdom that "[p]rotection of journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for press freedom ... Without such protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest. As a result the vital public-watchdog role of the press may be undermined and the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information may be adversely affected."

An order to disclose sources would violate the guarantee of free expression in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

[Kouralia]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=286544&p=19718553#p19718553

Am I the only one who sees the faults in this logic? "You promised anonymity to a news source, therefore you are complicit in murder."

Senator Machiavelli hasn't supported, aided or in anyway enabled the terrorists to do what they did.

Not only that, but news organizations aren't required to divulge their sources. The European Court of Human Rights stated in the 1996 case of Goodwin v. United Kingdom that "[p]rotection of journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for press freedom ... Without such protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest. As a result the vital public-watchdog role of the press may be undermined and the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information may be adversely affected."

An order to disclose sources would violate the guarantee of free expression in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Where does it say that he was acting in his role as a news correspondent person? He's also a senator, and chairman of the national security council.

[Ainin]

Hi, I found some wifi at a train station, but it's shoddy, so one thing.

"Not only that, but news organizations aren't required to divulge their sources. The European Court of Human Rights stated in the 1996 case of Goodwin v. United Kingdom (...)"

Hi, we never ratified the European Convention on Human Rights, so this point is completely void.

[Mediciano]

Where does it say that he was acting in his role as a news correspondent person? He's also a senator, and chairman of the national security council.

I think that's obvious, considering that the information he received from that account was promptly published in his newspaper. Furthermore, the burden of proof falls on you to prove that he was acting in a political capacity and not in the capacity of a private citizen and newspaper editor. Frankly, you have nothing except a screenshot for evidence, so that's not going to happen.

This entire investigation is making a mockery of the Aurentine justice system and I call on the Minister of Justice to put a stop to this outrage.

Hi, I found some wifi at a train station, but it's shoddy, so one thing.

"Not only that, but news organizations aren't required to divulge their sources. The European Court of Human Rights stated in the 1996 case of Goodwin v. United Kingdom (...)"

Hi, we never ratified the European Convention on Human Rights, so this point is completely void.

I was merely establishing a RL correlation for a similar interpretation here, although you're right, we aren't held to it.

[New Zepuha]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=286544&p=19718553#p19718553

Am I the only one who sees the faults in this logic? "You promised anonymity to a news source, therefore you are complicit in murder."

Senator Machiavelli hasn't supported, aided or in anyway enabled the terrorists to do what they did.

Not only that, but news organizations aren't required to divulge their sources. The European Court of Human Rights stated in the 1996 case of Goodwin v. United Kingdom that "[p]rotection of journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for press freedom ... Without such protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest. As a result the vital public-watchdog role of the press may be undermined and the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information may be adversely affected."

An order to disclose sources would violate the guarantee of free expression in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

But he did expose a classified document without consent of the government. Which is a crime.

[Mediciano]

But he did expose a classified document without consent of the government. Which is a crime.

The man was just read his charges by the Gendarmerie and that was not among them. The Gendarmerie is trying him for complicity to murder.

Furthermore, he had no way of knowing that information was classified. If a reporter has discovered the same info as the government (but not from the government), that isn't "revealing classified documents" that's investigative journalism.

[New Zepuha]

But he did expose a classified document without consent of the government. Which is a crime.

The man was just read his charges and that was not among them. The Gendarmerie is trying him for complicity to murder.

Well thats his initial charge, he can be charged with more as the investigation phase continues. Meaning he should be slapped with Espionage.

[Beta Test]

The conspiracy deepens...

[Mediciano]

The man was just read his charges and that was not among them. The Gendarmerie is trying him for complicity to murder.

Well thats his initial charge, he can be charged with more as the investigation phase continues. Meaning he should be slapped with Espionage.

First of all, only the document evidence in the government's possession is classified. If I had taken a photograph of a murder scene that the court also had (though from a different source/perspective) as evidence and I sent it to a tabloid, I wouldn't be revealing classified information.

[New Zepuha]

But he did expose a classified document without consent of the government. Which is a crime.

The man was just read his charges by the Gendarmerie and that was not among them. The Gendarmerie is trying him for complicity to murder.

Furthermore, he had no way of knowing that information was classified. If a reporter has discovered the same info as the government (but not from the government), that isn't "revealing classified documents" that's investigative journalism.

A warrant implies classification and I stated a couple times it was classified. Even if it was investigative journalism, this instance is a crime in Aurentina.

[Mediciano]

The man was just read his charges by the Gendarmerie and that was not among them. The Gendarmerie is trying him for complicity to murder.

Furthermore, he had no way of knowing that information was classified. If a reporter has discovered the same info as the government (but not from the government), that isn't "revealing classified documents" that's investigative journalism.

A warrant implies classification and I stated a couple times it was classified. Even if it was investigative journalism, this instance is a crime in Aurentina.

Except that the warrant itself was classified. How would he have known it existed??

[New Zepuha]

Well thats his initial charge, he can be charged with more as the investigation phase continues. Meaning he should be slapped with Espionage.

First of all, only the document evidence in the government's possession is classified. If I had taken a photograph of a murder scene that the court also had (though from a different source/perspective) as evidence and I sent it to a tabloid, I wouldn't be revealing classified information.

That doesnt even make sense. The document is ours, we can declassify it if we want.

[Dendart]

First of all, only the document evidence in the government's possession is classified. If I had taken a photograph of a murder scene that the court also had (though from a different source/perspective) as evidence and I sent it to a tabloid, I wouldn't be revealing classified information.

That doesnt even make sense. The document is ours, we can declassify it if we want.

Well clearly someone else had the document.

[Mediciano]

First of all, only the document evidence in the government's possession is classified. If I had taken a photograph of a murder scene that the court also had (though from a different source/perspective) as evidence and I sent it to a tabloid, I wouldn't be revealing classified information.

That doesnt even make sense. The document is ours, we can declassify it if we want.

He had a different document, from a different source. You don't own the text in the screen capture, you own the screen capture that you had as evidence. He has a different screen capture, which is his private property, that just so happens to contain the same text.

[Kouralia]

Mr Louis Ashberry Brunnich-Thorn, QC, is required.

[New Zepuha]

That doesnt even make sense. The document is ours, we can declassify it if we want.

He had a different document, from a different source. You don't own the text in the screen capture, you own the screen capture that you had as evidence. He has a different screen capture, which is his private property, that just so happens to contain the same text.

Okay, simple. We request a seizure warrant from the courts.

[Mediciano]

He had a different document, from a different source. You don't own the text in the screen capture, you own the screen capture that you had as evidence. He has a different screen capture, which is his private property, that just so happens to contain the same text.

Okay, simple. We request a seizure warrant from the courts.

That would make him a criminal, if he released it after such a warrant was issued. Also, what makes you think the Justice Ministry will support this misuse of power?

[Dendart]

If you want the document you can have it.

[Kouralia]

If you want the document you can have it.

We've got it. You forget, you uploaded it to the Monarchists' Journal.

[Mediciano]

If you want the document you can have it.

We've got it. You forget, you uploaded it to the Monarchists' Journal.

While it was his private property, to do with as he wished... you had no claim on that screen capture.

[Dendart]

Then why do you need a warrent.