Discussion: Citizen Group Membership

[mattwithanh]

While the rule would not place any express restrictions on the Citizens' right to freely assemble, a requirement that membership in all groups be open and public would chill Citizen participation in some groups.

So you concede that the rule wouldn't violate the right to assemble?

In fact, our Citizenry has already recognized that a requirement of public action may chill participation. Thus, it allows that votes in polls, such as elections, can be private. I argue that the same reasoning applies to membership and participation in Citizen Groups.

I haven't made one single argument that all citizen group participation should be open to the public. Simply the membership should be. I think you are lumping them together and its two seperate issues.

Moreover, I respectfully disagree with your premise that allowing private membership in a Citizens' group discourages the sharing of ideas. I believe the opposite is true. More complete participation can be fostered by allowing Citizens to meet and exchange ideas in private.

Again read more closely. I argued that private group member "In no way promotes" the sharing of ideas. "In no way promotes" is not a synonym for "discourages." Also your argument is intertwined with idea that group participation should be public. An idea that I am not advancing.

A recognition that the specific is preferred over the broadly worded is a widely recognized legal principle and a matter of common sense.

This statement is completely inaccurate. Broad wording is often used by legislators in order to give more power to executive and judicial officials in the form of discretion. The necessary and proper clause is a good example of this.

If our legislative body passed a law that prohibited persons from being "abusive" to one another, the law would be subject to constant debate about what abusive means. If on the other hand, the legislative body passed a law prohibiting vulgar language, the debate is radically reduced. Thus, where presented with two rules on the same subject, the more specific language must be preferred over the more broadly worded alternative. To do otherwise is to ignore that express statement of the rule making body.

I imagine before a discussion of which law would be preferred, the court would strike the vulgar language law down as unconstitutional in violation of the right of free speech.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Just going to critique matt's technique for a moment (this is a pet peeve of mine):

I imagine before a discussion of which law would be preferred, the court would strike the vulgar language law down as unconstitutional in violation of the right of free speech.

You're missing the point. He was talking about a general principle. He chose a bad example. But instead of finding a better example that also proved his point, you chose to attack the bad example.

Carry on...

 

[mattwithanh]

You're missing the point. He was talking about a general principle. He chose a bad example. But instead of finding a better example that also proved his point, you chose to attack the bad example.

You are right. A thousand apologies. It was lazy of me.

 

[DaveShack]

This question suddenly came to my mind: why would a citizen group want to gather in scecrecy?

For the group which prompted this discussion, I think it's a role play thing based on the secrecy of the RL organization the group is based on. Role play is fine, as long as that's what it is. By being secret, they'll miss out on membership who are interested in the group but don't want to take the trouble to go through the ritual. Also we'll be missing the cultural value of being able to read the role play of that group.

What if the motivation were coercion? What if the group position is "vote yes on this poll, if you vote no we won't vote for you in an election"? How do we detect that, if we don't know who is in the group?

 

[Hyronymus]

Well, I think coercion can always be "covered" even in public groups. Another reason less to go hidden I think.

 

[Shattered]

What if the motivation were coercion? What if the group position is "vote yes on this poll, if you vote no we won't vote for you in an election"? How do we detect that, if we don't know who is in the group?

I don't believe that it will come to that. If a group of people tell an individual to vote for someone or that they wont vote for you, I would assume that they would come to a moderator with it. Then the offending party can be punished as per the rules of the forum. People who let themselves get bullied around are weak for democracy because they aren't given a chance to make a choice.

 

[ice2k4]

I don't believe that it will come to that. If a group of people tell an individual to vote for someone or that they wont vote for you, I would assume that they would come to a moderator with it. Then the offending party can be punished as per the rules of the forum. People who let themselves get bullied around are weak for democracy because they aren't given a chance to make a choice.

THere is a problem with this though, since numbers are power. Think of the political group more like a mafia. I say you vote for Citizen A. If we find out you don't, then the whole party will vote against you. Same thing for decision votes.

 

[Nobody]

I also honestly don't care if a bunch of no-brain citizens want to get together and blindly follow another no brain citizen.

I dont care for this discussion, because

1. Only a moderator can force me to change anything.
2. This thread wont change the Forum rules and moderators follow them.
3. Only thing a non-moderator action could take is to sue me. and i encourage it.
4. My mafia thread never goes anywhere.
5. If donsig was refering to me or my friends as "no brainers" then he can kiss my arss. (if he didnt then please go about you day, freind)

 

[Hyronymus]

Come on guys, acept each other's differences and get along with each other nicely. No need for bickering, it's a game remember!