Concensus opinion:
The Turn Chat Instruction Thread is not an open posting environment. Posts are restricted to those specified in the Code of Standards.
Public Defendant's Review:
Ok, I've perused the Constitution, and it looks to me that only officials are legally entitled to post in turn chat threads.
Article A (as referenced above by Bill_in_PDX) is not a problem, as the also aforementioned CoL Sec A (when looked at in context), is in fact
defining the meaning of the terms used in Article A of the Const. In addition to this, I reference CoS Section B, Point 3:
B. Chat Turn Instruction Thread
3. Post organisation
B. First Post:
1. Time and date when the chat will be held
2. Save game which will be used
C. Following Posts:
1. Chat turn instructions from the officials, one post per department and province
D. Next Post:
1. Used for uploading the intermittent saves during the chat.
E. Last Posts:
1. Turn Summary
2. Chat-Log
3. Screenshots (if needed)
Here we see it specified that posts in the thread should be from officials, and that there should be only
one post per department and province
This means if you're not an official, and you don't have the mandate to make that one post for a dept or province, you shouldn't be posting in the thread.
Chief Justice's Review:
I agree with the Public Defendant's Review verbatim. Additionally, Free speech is a blanket right (and arguably the most important one). However, in certain cases it is weighed against a specific mandate and can be out trumped. In this case the specific mandate is that of the DP and leaders to carry out their assigned duties (also given in the Constitution). Freedom of speech loses in this case as specifically putting false, incorrect or unmandated instructions in the turn chat thread directly conflicts with the mandate of the leaders and DP. As there are other venues for the statements there is no overriding need to post such items in the reserved thread.
For a real life corolary to the concept of measuring look at our court system. The press has a generalized freedom to view and report. A judge can stifle that right when the information is prejudicial to the fair trial of a case.
For a corolary to the location item look at our freedom of speech. There is no problem if you are in the middle of the Adirondacks with nobody around and you scream "Terrorists! Run!" Do the same thing in a crowded building lobby and you will be arrested (unless there really were terrorists, of course).
Judge Advocate's Review:
I agree with the honorable (honourable to some of you) Public Defender, in that I think the intention of turn chat threads was to be a clean sheet of instructions for those who can post same.
Therefore citizen involvement would not be appropriate in that single thread, whereas they are encouraged to debate endlessly in their Province threads.
On the surface of it, there are two things to check. First, the COS, Section B deals directly with the Turn Chat Thread itself. However, while that section implies that only actual instructions should be posted from leaders, there is not any verbage that restricts the thread to only leaders.
Then we get to the sticky issue of Constitution, Article A, which guarentees free speech to us all, and COL, Section A, Point 3, which says:
a) Citizens may post their comments in forum threads wherever appropriate
"Appropriate" is an important word in that sentence. It would seem to give us the leeway to provide a Judicial interpretation of the turn chat standards which would allow restricting the posts to those with legal instructions only.