butafly v. the Northeast

[sentinel]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Under Butafly's ridiculous interpretation, citizens of the Northeast shall have the unabridged right to drunk drive without legal restraint by the government, through its laws, providing said action does not directly harm another citizen physically, mentally, or otherwise prevents another citizen from exercising this same freedom.

There's a reasonable argument to be made that drunk driving probabilistically causes physical and mental harm upon citizens. No need to worry about that getting shot down

There really needs to be an amendment, though.

You can drunk drive on a road alone and not cause harm to someone else...

The expected value of accidents while driving drunk is a statistically significant nonzero number. Yes, it's possible not to harm someone while drunk driving, just like it's possible not to harm someone while punching him. The probability of hurt is much higher, but both should be illegal under the law.

Sounds like an equally absurd interpretation of this clause.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The point is... y'all need to change your Constitution.  And then quit voting troublemakers like a Person into office.

[President Tyrion]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Under Butafly's ridiculous interpretation, citizens of the Northeast shall have the unabridged right to drunk drive without legal restraint by the government, through its laws, providing said action does not directly harm another citizen physically, mentally, or otherwise prevents another citizen from exercising this same freedom.

There's a reasonable argument to be made that drunk driving probabilistically causes physical and mental harm upon citizens. No need to worry about that getting shot down

There really needs to be an amendment, though.

You can drunk drive on a road alone and not cause harm to someone else...

The expected value of accidents while driving drunk is a statistically significant nonzero number. Yes, it's possible not to harm someone while drunk driving, just like it's possible not to harm someone while punching him. The probability of hurt is much higher, but both should be illegal under the law.

Sounds like an equally absurd interpretation of this clause.

It depends on how literally you want to take the word "directly".

The point is... y'all need to change your Constitution.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

It is the responsibility of the state to protect life within the region. If the life is human, we have laws against murder and rape. If the life is animal, we have laws against inhumane killing of animals and bestiality. If the life is nature, we have laws to preserve nature and regulate its destruction by humans.

Laws preventing the raping of animals is in the interest of the state, just as laws preventing the raping of human beings.

That's an interesting interpretation of the responsibility of the state; it is, of course, not shared by the Northeast Constitution. I do not see within it any reference to animals' or nature's rights. (Nor do I see any such thing in the Federal Constitution)

Attention CJO Dallasfan,

I am suing to overturn the Bestiality Criminialization Act on the grounds that it clearly violates Article VI Section 5 of the Northeast Constitution.

Bestiality Criminialization Act:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

NNC Article VI Section 5:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My input, if I may be allowed is that this could harm other citizens, inter-special transmission of diseases is believed to be the cause of AIDS, which effects many citizens. That is my small contribution.

It's a stretch to say bestiality will "directly harm" another citizen.  I mean... this is pretty stupid, and as usual a Person is being a troll by trying to make the problem worse.  The proper course of action would be to propose an amendment to fix this (even if that's done during the course of litigation).  Instead of trying to propose an amendment, he proposed to repeal the law.

There was a significant gap between failure of the RBCA and the filing of this lawsuit. This was to allow another representative to introduce such an amendment -- they would have worded it much better than I could. I have no idea how to set a reasonable balance on this issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm honoured to be considered a trouble maker by noted anti-democrat Inks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Under Butafly's ridiculous interpretation, citizens of the Northeast shall have the unabridged right to drunk drive without legal restraint by the government, through its laws, providing said action does not directly harm another citizen physically, mentally, or otherwise prevents another citizen from exercising this same freedom.

That would, indeed, be correct.

And before you continue spouting off about "ridiculous interpretations," I'd like to hear what your interpretation of the section in question is. It looks pretty unambiguous to me.

[Flake]

Butafly, stop.

[Dr. Cynic]

I would submit that anyone practicing bestiality suffers from a mental illness and are thus directly harming themselves.

[President Tyrion]

I would submit that anyone practicing bestiality suffers from a mental illness and are thus directly harming themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

butafly, why did you pick this bill to stand on, anyway? There are so many more bills that could demonstrate the issues with this clause. Heck, you could have just gone ahead and tried to amend the clause.

[Oakvale]

I would submit that anyone practicing bestiality suffers from a mental illness and are thus directly harming themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

butafly, why did you pick this bill to stand on, anyway? There are so many more bills that could demonstrate the issues with this clause. Heck, you could have just gone ahead and tried to amend the clause.

Because he finds animals attractive?

[sentinel]

I would submit that anyone practicing bestiality suffers from a mental illness and are thus directly harming themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

butafly, why did you pick this bill to stand on, anyway? There are so many more bills that could demonstrate the issues with this clause. Heck, you could have just gone ahead and tried to amend the clause.

Because he finds animals attractive?

I would have supported amending the clause. I don't support pointing out imperfections in the clause by legalizing bestiality.

[sentinel]

How does this feel!?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

There was a significant gap between failure of the RBCA and the filing of this lawsuit. This was to allow another representative to introduce such an amendment -- they would have worded it much better than I could. I have no idea how to set a reasonable balance on this issue.

Did you ever suggest such an amendment?  I haven't been able to find a post where you did that.  You're giving this about as much good faith as the Republicans did the shutdown.

[Хahar 🤔]

a Person found an unconstitutional law and pointed out that it is unconstitutional. It's a shame to see everyone else displaying such blatant disregard for their own constitution.

And yes, drunk driving laws would also be unconstitutional.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

So, would you care to file a brief, butafly? Or would you prefer to resolve the matter by working on an amendment to the Constitution?

To my knowledge, it is unprofessional for justices to comment on cases that they've yet to rule on, so I can't directly speak to the matter.

[PJ]

a Person found an unconstitutional law and pointed out that it is unconstitutional. It's a shame to see everyone else displaying such blatant disregard for their own constitution.

And yes, drunk driving laws would also be unconstitutional.

Xahar is actually correct. Why don't one of you Northeasterners just introduce a constitutional amendment instead of freaking out. I am confused however, as to why butafly didn't just do this.

[Dr. Cynic]

a Person found an unconstitutional law and pointed out that it is unconstitutional. It's a shame to see everyone else displaying such blatant disregard for their own constitution.

And yes, drunk driving laws would also be unconstitutional.

Xahar is actually correct. Why don't one of you Northeasterners just introduce a constitutional amendment instead of freaking out. I am confused however, as to why butafly didn't just do this.

It's being done.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

So, would you care to file a brief, butafly?

I think my argument is adequately summed up in the OP. As I said, this is very unambiguous.

I would submit that anyone practicing bestiality suffers from a mental illness and are thus directly harming themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

butafly, why did you pick this bill to stand on, anyway? There are so many more bills that could demonstrate the issues with this clause. Heck, you could have just gone ahead and tried to amend the clause.

Attention, more or less. Not attention for me (stop laughing, you), but I doubt a case over environmental law or somesuch would have provided enough momentum for the Assembly to restrict the "Right to Privacy"... I needed to show the most extreme consequences.

I would submit that anyone practicing bestiality suffers from a mental illness and are thus directly harming themselves.

Does "themselves" really count? That leads to criminalising suicide and whatnot.

Something I missed:

This is an absurd interpretation of the right to privacy. I will not condone the raping of animals.

Under Butafly/A Person's interpretation you can also argue that murdering a non citizen is legal. Interpreting it in this way would set a horrible precedent for the future.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, the second instance only says "citizens". Not "Northeast citizens" or even "Atlasian citizens". Everyone is a citizen of some place or another.

[Flake]

Butafly, stop.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

So, would you care to file a brief, butafly?

I think my argument is adequately summed up in the OP. As I said, this is very unambiguous.

I would submit that anyone practicing bestiality suffers from a mental illness and are thus directly harming themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

butafly, why did you pick this bill to stand on, anyway? There are so many more bills that could demonstrate the issues with this clause. Heck, you could have just gone ahead and tried to amend the clause.

Attention, more or less. Not attention for me (stop laughing, you), but I doubt a case over environmental law or somesuch would have provided enough momentum for the Assembly to restrict the "Right to Privacy"... I needed to show the most extreme consequences.

I would submit that anyone practicing bestiality suffers from a mental illness and are thus directly harming themselves.

Does "themselves" really count? That leads to criminalising suicide and whatnot.

Something I missed:

This is an absurd interpretation of the right to privacy. I will not condone the raping of animals.

Under Butafly/A Person's interpretation you can also argue that murdering a non citizen is legal. Interpreting it in this way would set a horrible precedent for the future.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, the second instance only says "citizens". Not "Northeast citizens" or even "Atlasian citizens". Everyone is a citizen of some place or another.

Noted. Would sirnick, Matt from VT, or anybody else care to file a brief?

[Adam Griffin]

And all this time I thought it'd be the South that'd be f[inks]ing animals!

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Still here, butafly. My apologies for the delay on the ruling - I have heard from two others that they would like to file briefs but have yet to do so. I'll wait a few more days for those.

[Kitteh]

I'd like to file a brief in this case (ftr, I was not one of the people who PM'd dallas about this):

If you look at Article VI, which contains the clause in question, it appears that the rights enumerated by the Article are not intended to apply solely to citizens.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only other clause in this article which mentions "citizens" is the right to vote, which is a right that by necessity must be limited only to citizens. In fact, the right to vote is limited to Northeast citizens by a separate clause, Article V Section 5:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would be redundant for the constitution to specify in both 5.5 and 6.3 that only citizens shall have the right to vote. Therefore, the only logical conclusion was that the use of the term "citizens" in 6.3 was not to limit the right to vote only to citizens, it was to guarantee citizens the right to vote without necessarily implying that others cannot be granted that right (for example, by the legislature in a statutory law, not a constitutional amendment, although that would take an amendment to 5.5). In other words, the use of "citizens" is an inclusionary, not exclusionary, term, which differentiates this section from 5.5 which excludes the right to vote from others.

As this is the only other use of the term "citizens" in Article VI, aside from the Right to Privacy Section in question in this case, it is reasonable to assume that the same definition is intended for the use of the term "citizens" in Section 5. Thus the use of "citizens" in this Section is not intended to limit the right to privacy only to citizens, but to guarantee the right to privacy to citizens without necessarily excluding others from that right or excluding harm done to non-citizens from constituting a valid reason to impede on a citizen's right to privacy.

The other piece of the constitution relevant to this case is the beginning of Article VI, which states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This explicitly states that the rights granted below it are the inalienable rights of the people of the Northeast, not just Northeast citizens. The legal definition of "person" is an extremely complicated subject too much to get into here. However, I would submit to the court that the Northeast has already granted animals some rights in the Animal Protection Act, and that this should be considered sufficient evidence that animals are at least partly considered legal persons under Northeast law. Thus, the statement that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights apply to "the people" of the Northeast guarantees some level of protection of these rights for animals, where feasible and applicable.

Considering all of this, I believe that the act of bestiality meets the standard of an action that "directly harm[ s] another citizen physically, mentally, or otherwise prevents another citizen from exercising this same freedom" as the writers of this Constitution intended that clause to be interpreted, and thus that the Bestiality Criminalization Act is constitutional.

[sentinel]

I will file a brief before my tenure as GM begins.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Nick?

[sentinel]

Crap, I forgot and now I'm not Governor. Is it ethical of me to file a brief now?

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Crap, I forgot and now I'm not Governor. Is it ethical of me to file a brief now?

I don't see why it wouldn't be.