Seocc
18-11-2003, 14:11
Case 3-2003-8410
In the Supreme Court of Metropolitan SeOCC
Frida Martin and Thomas Mittlener v SeOCC et al
Statement of the Case
Appellants Martin and Mittlener, reporters working under contract of the Ministry of Information, were arrested separately on 12-08-20xx for possession of classified information taken from the offices of the Electronic/Digital Warfare Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. At arraignment the state sought and received a restraining order preventing defendants Martin and Mittlener from publishing the illegally obtained material during the trial. Both pleaded guilty to illegal possession of government material and received rehabilitative sentences on 21-10-20xx, at which point the state sought a permanent restraining order against publication of the illegally obtained material. The trial judge refused and the state appealed to the district court, which upheld the trial judge’s denial. An en banc hearing of the 11 judge panel was called and reversed the decision, granting the state the permanent restraining order against appellants Martin and Mittlener.
Appellants brought the decision before the Supreme Court of Metropolitan SeOCC, which granted a hearing on 02-11-20xx. Amicus briefs were filed for appellants by the Ministry of Social Affairs, the International Advocates Office, the International Civil Liberties Union and the Ministry of Information.
ooc: Okay so here’s the deal, the lawyer bit of me has gotten a bit of an airing and I thought it would be fun to try to get an actual court case where our nations weren’t on the line and some actual, real legal rules applied. What I’m looking for here are at least two people to act as lawyers for either side, and if possible some people who would play the justices (there are nine, and I would be acting as the chief justice, thank you very much, so that’s eight possible). The case has already been to court so we won’t be wrangling over technical issues like procedure and such, instead it’ll all be about the policy. Those with legal experience, pre-law or being arrested, preferred if possible.
So there will be a set date for the hearing, at which point each side will have to have posted a document arguing for their case. No length max or min, as much as you need. Having submitted their briefs each lawyer will then submit to questions from the Court, to argue their point and clarify their arguments. After both sides have been questioned the judges will decide the victor, which will decide whether an upcoming MoI release includes some embarrassing information about the EDWD.
Background information: SeOCC’s courts run on a hybrid of case law and common law. There is no ‘constitution’ as such, but instead there are a set of principles that the government must adhere to, and one of those principles is indeed free speech, expression and publication. While social policy arguments account for most of the briefs that reach the justices, the Court does recognize case law from any country as backing for a policy argument. However, SeOCC does not run on a rights based system but instead on a utilitarian principle model, i.e. free speech is important, but if your speech shuts up other people then your speech can be limited.
The basic issues at hand are:
Whether the government may use prior restraint to prevent publication of classified documents.
Whether protection for all classified documents allows the government to engage in illegal censorship by ‘classifying’ all information they wish shushed up.
Whether illegally obtained material can be published.
Whether the state’s interest security interest overrides the need for free speech and publication.
Whether the state can be compelled to declassify documents in the interest of free speech.
Any takers?
In the Supreme Court of Metropolitan SeOCC
Frida Martin and Thomas Mittlener v SeOCC et al
Statement of the Case
Appellants Martin and Mittlener, reporters working under contract of the Ministry of Information, were arrested separately on 12-08-20xx for possession of classified information taken from the offices of the Electronic/Digital Warfare Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. At arraignment the state sought and received a restraining order preventing defendants Martin and Mittlener from publishing the illegally obtained material during the trial. Both pleaded guilty to illegal possession of government material and received rehabilitative sentences on 21-10-20xx, at which point the state sought a permanent restraining order against publication of the illegally obtained material. The trial judge refused and the state appealed to the district court, which upheld the trial judge’s denial. An en banc hearing of the 11 judge panel was called and reversed the decision, granting the state the permanent restraining order against appellants Martin and Mittlener.
Appellants brought the decision before the Supreme Court of Metropolitan SeOCC, which granted a hearing on 02-11-20xx. Amicus briefs were filed for appellants by the Ministry of Social Affairs, the International Advocates Office, the International Civil Liberties Union and the Ministry of Information.
ooc: Okay so here’s the deal, the lawyer bit of me has gotten a bit of an airing and I thought it would be fun to try to get an actual court case where our nations weren’t on the line and some actual, real legal rules applied. What I’m looking for here are at least two people to act as lawyers for either side, and if possible some people who would play the justices (there are nine, and I would be acting as the chief justice, thank you very much, so that’s eight possible). The case has already been to court so we won’t be wrangling over technical issues like procedure and such, instead it’ll all be about the policy. Those with legal experience, pre-law or being arrested, preferred if possible.
So there will be a set date for the hearing, at which point each side will have to have posted a document arguing for their case. No length max or min, as much as you need. Having submitted their briefs each lawyer will then submit to questions from the Court, to argue their point and clarify their arguments. After both sides have been questioned the judges will decide the victor, which will decide whether an upcoming MoI release includes some embarrassing information about the EDWD.
Background information: SeOCC’s courts run on a hybrid of case law and common law. There is no ‘constitution’ as such, but instead there are a set of principles that the government must adhere to, and one of those principles is indeed free speech, expression and publication. While social policy arguments account for most of the briefs that reach the justices, the Court does recognize case law from any country as backing for a policy argument. However, SeOCC does not run on a rights based system but instead on a utilitarian principle model, i.e. free speech is important, but if your speech shuts up other people then your speech can be limited.
The basic issues at hand are:
Whether the government may use prior restraint to prevent publication of classified documents.
Whether protection for all classified documents allows the government to engage in illegal censorship by ‘classifying’ all information they wish shushed up.
Whether illegally obtained material can be published.
Whether the state’s interest security interest overrides the need for free speech and publication.
Whether the state can be compelled to declassify documents in the interest of free speech.
Any takers?