SB 2018-159: Atlasian Evidentiary Disclosures Act (Failed)

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2. Renumbers all appropriate Sections of SB-2017 to account for this change.[/quote]

Atlasian People's House of Representatives
Passed 6-2 in the Atlasian House,

[/quote]

Sponsor: NEEDED

     I hereby open the floor for debate.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

I’ll sponsor it. I support this bill.

[cinyc]

What does this mean:

ii. Failure to comply with a writ of subpoena shall be considered a gross violation of trial procedure, as specified in Section 5, clause iii of this Act.

I can't find what a gross violation of trial procedure is, or what the penalties for it are, in what was linked.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Senators have 24 hours to object to Senator Haslam assuming sponsorship.

[Anna Komnene]

So first of all, there's an important clarification we have to handle. We appear to have been given the wrong version of this bill because the House adopted an amendment before final passage but it wasn't included in the final certification. AFAIK, this is the text we should be debating here:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2. Renumbers all appropriate Sections of SB-2017 to account for this change.

[/quote]

What does this mean:

ii. Failure to comply with a writ of subpoena shall be considered a gross violation of trial procedure, as specified in Section 5, clause iii of this Act.

I can't find what a gross violation of trial procedure is, or what the penalties for it are, in what was linked.

I'm not really sure what a "gross violation of trial procedure" is either, but apparently it's charged as "Contempt of Court" under the "Crimes Against Atlasia" section.

Sentencing is covered under section 7

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyway, I don't much like the idea of including tacit consent to release PMs just by being a member of the game. I don't think anyone signing up for the game has a reason to assume their giving that consent when they join.

[cinyc]

I agree with Siren on this - nobody expects their private messages to become public as a result of playing a game.

What "problem" is this bill supposed to address, anyway?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Thanks, Senator Siren. I have fixed the text in the original post.

[Mike Thick]

Thanks for voicing your concerns -- I think I can address some of them.

The problem this bill is intended to address is a lack of codified procedures for compelling testimony and production of evidence. It isn't an immediate concern, but if a situation ever arises in which it is necessary to compel either of these things, this bill will provide guidelines for the procedures so that the court doesn't have to fly by the seat of its pants -- possibly opening it up to disputes over the legality of the proceedings.

On privacy: This wouldn't make the personal messages of citizens public any more than your private communications IRL would be made public if they were retrieved by a search warrant. As in IRL, these motions to compel discovery would be intensely scrutinized by the court, and anyone trying to force someone to produce PMs would have to have a very good reason that said PMs are relevant to the court proceeding.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     With no objections, Senator Haslam is sponsor. While debate is already going strong for this one, I invite the Senator to make a statement in favor of the bill.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     While we're waiting on the sponsor, I would note that Ted, the bill's original author, wrote something up explaining his reasoning behind it. I recommend all Senators look at that post in this thread and formulate questions based on it.

[cinyc]

Thanks for voicing your concerns -- I think I can address some of them.

The problem this bill is intended to address is a lack of codified procedures for compelling testimony and production of evidence. It isn't an immediate concern, but if a situation ever arises in which it is necessary to compel either of these things, this bill will provide guidelines for the procedures so that the court doesn't have to fly by the seat of its pants -- possibly opening it up to disputes over the legality of the proceedings.

On privacy: This wouldn't make the personal messages of citizens public any more than your private communications IRL would be made public if they were retrieved by a search warrant. As in IRL, these motions to compel discovery would be intensely scrutinized by the court, and anyone trying to force someone to produce PMs would have to have a very good reason that said PMs are relevant to the court proceeding.

What is the penalty for a gross violation of trial procedure, which doesn’t appear to be defined anywhere?

[Mike Thick]

Thanks for voicing your concerns -- I think I can address some of them.

The problem this bill is intended to address is a lack of codified procedures for compelling testimony and production of evidence. It isn't an immediate concern, but if a situation ever arises in which it is necessary to compel either of these things, this bill will provide guidelines for the procedures so that the court doesn't have to fly by the seat of its pants -- possibly opening it up to disputes over the legality of the proceedings.

On privacy: This wouldn't make the personal messages of citizens public any more than your private communications IRL would be made public if they were retrieved by a search warrant. As in IRL, these motions to compel discovery would be intensely scrutinized by the court, and anyone trying to force someone to produce PMs would have to have a very good reason that said PMs are relevant to the court proceeding.

What is the penalty for a gross violation of trial procedure, which doesn’t appear to be defined anywhere?

The violation establishes grounds for a charge of contempt of court, which is established in the original Criminal Justice Act.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Are there any more comments on this thread? I get the sense that the debate is not settled yet, but I could proceed with a final vote if the Senators have nothing more to say.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I hereby open a final vote on the bill. Senators have 72 hours to vote aye, nay, or abstain.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

NAY

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Nay!

[cinyc]

Nay

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Bumping this so Senators see it. Right now it is failing, but only half of the Senate has voted.

[Anna Komnene]

Nay

[Associate Justice PiT]

     With four votes against and none in favor, this bill has failed.