Amazeroth wrote:Siggon Kristov wrote:Based on Moderation's perspective on this, do comments on this bill count as breaking the law?
Note, in Lodamun...
- The Government policy concerning religions is that "There is an official state religion, and membership is mandatory."
- The Government's position towards the administration of law is that "There are no courts, the Head of State will determine what's right or wrong."
- The government's policy regarding regulation of media content says that "It is forbidden to criticize the government, or publish any material that the government does not approve of."
- The law on State penalties for blasphemy is that "Both Private and Public Blasphemy are considered grave offenses, and are heavily prosecuted."
- The law on Parliamentary Privilege states that "Members of the national legislative body are exempted from any civil or criminal liability fot their speech or actions, but this immunity can be overruled by a vote in the nation's legislative body."
- The Government policy with respect to the death penalty is that "Religious doctrine determines the death penalty."
--
Wouldn't it be unfair for his characters to be breaking the law without realistic consequences? Do we need unanimous consent (including his) for there to be RP about his party breaking the law? If his party is going to RP as openly breaking the law, realistic RP would mean his characters would face consequences. Wouldn't it be god-moding if he refused to allow his characters to face consequences?
The articles, in the bill itself, don't break the law. I think the comments break the law.
The pro-religion parties aren't god-moding. There is an easy way to get out of the official mandatory religion that Lodamun has, without having unrealistic RP... Propose a bill to make it that "There is an official state religion, but membership is completely voluntary" (to avoid blasphemy) then abolish blasphemy laws, then abolish the state religion. Moving from one extreme to the next is totally unrealistic in this case, especially since other laws cut down foreign influence that would counter the state's heavy indoctrination of children into Lodamese Nationalism. This isn't what I'm complaining about, though. I have a slight problem with it being unrealistic to propose such legislation, but my real problem is with the comments made by characters of the Allied Humanists.
Since the offending party is gone now, this is just theoretical, but for the sake of making things clear:
In order to punish the character making the comments, you'd just need a vote in the nation's legilative body, as the law on immunity states, in order to take that immunity away. Then this character would be open for prosecution, which, since the HoS is the only judge, should be swiftly leading to execution, based on the rest of the laws (if it is, indeed, blasphemy, which rests entirely on the way that religion defines blasphemy). What doesn't really enter into this is the law about media content, since it applies to the media, and not to the individual making the forbidden statement.
Another unrealistic case: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=416435
My problem here isn't the changing of the national religion, but the unrealistic way in which it is being done.
The player is aware of the following laws:
"There is an official state religion, and membership is mandatory."
"Both Private and Public Blasphemy are considered grave offenses, and are heavily prosecuted."
At the same time, his character made a statement about the national religion, calling it "a deadweight ideology which has been forced upon our long-suffering people for far too long."
There are many cases of the government suppressing Hosianism, yet the character says "Give the people the freedom to worship in the same way as their ancestors did! Long live the Hosian revival!"
I think it would be more realistic to have proposed to change the government policy on religion to having an official religion where membership is voluntary, and changing the laws on blasphemy to allow him to openly criticize Lodamese Nationalism. After that, he could say what he wanted to say about it, and get it removed from the state altogether. Remember, all I'm going at here is whether it's realistic or not.
--
He can't say he wasn't aware of anything, because he had messaged me and I replied. Also, he would obviously be aware of the current variables of the laws he's proposing to change; they're mentioned in the very bill he created.
He can't claim parliamentary privilege because he has no seats, and the President no longer has control of the judicial system. Realistically, what would happen?