14-05-2003 18:13									#1
	Official: The Court: ABC vs INN Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Greetings all, the Court of Apolyton is now in session. WOuld all Judges please PM me if they can serve, and would parties involved (Archaic and Sheep) please post who is defending them. If Sheep wishes not to take part, the Court will appoint a representative for him.

The Alecrast Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is suing the Independant News Network (INN) for defamation, with regards to the post made by Sheep, editor of the INN, in http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=85676 stating that

quote: No comment has been made by Alecrastian propoganda machine ABC as of yet.

While Sheep does not agree to hear this, thus it is non binding on any party, Archaic of Alecrast has asked that it is heard.

Once Judges have PMed, I will post stating judges, defence and prosecution, and order of play.

This is an official thread, please do not spam at all, PM me if you wish to speak out of turn. Thank you.

	14-05-2003 20:29									#2
	Re: Official: The Court: ABC vs INN Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Drogue Archaic of Alecrast has asked that it is heard.

[OOC] "Archaic of Alecrast" has no say in this matter, as the ABC, while incorperated in Alecrast, is a private company. Please consider any PM's by me on this matter as from Jim Baxton, ABC's Lead Anchor [/OOC]

The ABC will represent itself via its anchorman Jim Baxton.

	15-05-2003 12:27									#3
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

INN officals have stated that according to the Chancellor of New Griffith's advise, they will neither acknowledge nor attend any of these court proceedings. We will not adhere to the results and we will continue to bring Indpendent News to the region, not Alecrast's news.

As for INN if you wish a piece to be aired about your nation, feel free to PM me (Sheep) the details.

	30-05-2003 16:26									#4
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The ABC would like to request a time for the court to handle this case.

	30-05-2003 17:48									#5
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I agree, let's appoint a representative for Sheep, and keep going with the case, the court can not be locked only because one of the parties involved doesn't accept her ruling.

We should open the trial ad absentia, it happened many times in real life.

Saluti

	30-05-2003 17:49									#6
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

We ought to do as the World Court did, and find someone to appoint as Court Defender, for cases where people have to be tried in absentia...

	31-05-2003 04:59									#7
	Got spare money?

I am sorry for the delay, I PMed Jack a while ago about being Sheep's attorney again, however he has yet to confirm, due to issues with the Elethan war. I will try to find someone else. SO far we have 3 judges willing to hear it, and if we find an attorney for Sheep, we can commence.

Edit: Have found an defence attorney. Elijah will be defending Sheep's position, as the court appointed attorney. Please remember this is a non-binding case, but is used for legitimacy.

Chief Judge: Drogue
Judges: Drogue, GeneralTacticus and Giovanni Wine

Plaintiff: Alecrastian Broadcasting Corporation
Prosecution Representative: Archaic

Defendant: Sheep of the Independant News Network
Defence Representative: Elijah

Would Archaic like to make his opening statement, stating who he wishes to sue, and on what charges, and then Elijah can make his. One post each please.

Last edited by Drogue on 31-05-2003 at 05:35

	31-05-2003 07:28									#8
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

ABC Anchorman Jim Baxton

Members of the court, from our perspective, this case is simple and straightforward. The INN has made attempts to stain our name by calling us a "Alecrastian propoganda machine", implying that our news is not free from bias. And they have the gall to say this when we are a private company with no linkages to the Alecrast government whatsoever, unlike many other major Alecrast firms who actually have their director's on the Alecrast Council, such as Nukes4U, and when they are a state run operation of New Griffith, a Corrupt Dictatorship with some rather obvious political motivations for wishing to stain the names of anyone who seems to give them and their allies Sheepsta an unfavourable coverage. Members of the court, I ask you now, is it unfair to report the truth, no matter how painful that truth may be to some? Does it make us a propaganda machine to report the truth which these nations dislike? No. The INN has defamed us, and we would like some compensation.

	01-06-2003 00:37									#9
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Dr. Buzz L. Year, Marijuanian Liberal Thinktank.

Members of the court, your honours, this case is both simple, and complex, with causal issues and repercussions that must be explored.

Central is the issue of truth and propaganda. I am to show how by their very nature, news stations, papers, and all journalistic means, are subjective, and furthermore, how they cannot ever show an objective truth. For this, we shall compare the news of the INN, with its audience, and the ABC with its.

Also important in the defence of the INN is the issue of free speech. Should one be persecuted for speaking ones mind or indeed, just speaking? Is the legal status of free speech enhanced when one has evidence to back up ones position, though such evidence is not necessary to that position?

Futhermore, this case is about two corporations, two organisations, two voices. The national issues behind it, while being a causal factor, are not sufficient conditions to this case arising, except for possible determination of the evidence behind each claim, although we shall futher see how that is, in itself, not a matter with legal weight with regards to speech.

As a side-note, I shall also attack the basis, the proportionality, and the context behind the Alecrast Broadcasting Corporation's claim for reparations/compensation, and what purpose such an outcome would serve.

Last edited by Whaleboy on 01-06-2003 at 02:48

	01-06-2003 09:45									#10
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by elijah Also important in the defence of the INN is the issue of free speech. Should one be persecuted for speaking ones mind or indeed, just speaking? Is the legal status of free speech enhanced when one has evidence to back up ones position, though such evidence is not necessary to that position?

The INN is free to call us whatever it likes, however, what it is not free to do is to present that editorializing as fact unless it can back up its position. If someone called the most green friendly business in the world a terrible polluter, and not attempt to back up the claim, then they would be doing exactly what INN is doing with the ABC here.

quote: Originally posted by elijah Futhermore, this case is about two corporations, two organisations, two voices. The national issues behind it, while being a causal factor, are not sufficient conditions to this case arising, except for possible determination of the evidence behind each claim, although we shall futher see how that is, in itself, not a matter with legal weight with regards to speech.

On ther contray, the national issues are an important factor. The INN is a government owned broadcasting agency of the government of New Grifftith, a nation which the UN has judged to be a Corrupt Dictatorship. That nation is a strong ally of Sheepsta, a nation which is engaged almost in a cold war with Alecrast at the moment. And their attacks towards us were unsubstantiated claims that we were a propaganda machine of the Alecrast government.

quote: Originally posted by elijah As a side-note, I shall also attack the basis, the proportionality, and the context behind the Alecrast Broadcasting Corporation's claim for reparations/compensation, and what purpose such an outcome would serve.

The basis is that these attacks against our character damage the public's confidence in us, which in turn lowers the number of subscribers to us, in turn lowering our revenue. This is both as a moral victory to restore the public's confidence in us, and as reparation for our loss of revenue thanks to their comments.

	02-06-2003 02:19									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I stated one post Mr. Baxton. This was for opening statements. If you wish to challenge it, do it in evidence.

We are now able to hear your evidence. One post per piece of evidence please, and then Elijah can cross. Then proceed with your second piece of evidence. Once this has finished, Elijah can do exactly the same for the defence.

Thank you. The court recognises Mr. Baxton for the prosecution.

Last edited by Drogue on 02-06-2003 at 23:51

	02-06-2003 12:42									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Our apologies your honour. As you can imagine, we feel rather strongly about this issue. Please, forgive our outburst.

And also....could I ask why you are referring to me as Archaic? He is the liege lord of Alecrast. I am simply Jim Baxton, ABC Anchorman.



As we said during our outburst, the INN is free to call us whatever it likes. However, what it is not free to do is to present that editorializing as fact unless it can back up its position. There is quite a difference between attacking someone, and slandering them, and INN have certainly crossed that line. If someone called the most green friendly business in the world a terrible polluter, and not attempt to back up the claim, then they would be doing exactly what INN is doing with the ABC here.

We believe that the national issues are an important factor in this case. The INN is a government owned broadcasting agency of the government of New Grifftith, a nation which the UN has judged to be a Corrupt Dictato......*Puts a hand to the earpiece in his right ear* No, I'm sorry, apparently its designation has just been changed by the UN to Iron Fist Socialist, not Corrupt Dictatorship. That nation is a strong ally of Sheepsta, a nation which is judged to be a Corrupt Dictatorship by the UN, and which is engaged almost in a cold war with Alecrast at this point in time. The slanders made towards us were unsubstantiated claims that we were a propaganda machine of the Alecrast government. There is a clear motive here for INN, and it stems from their political involvement in issues which have placed them against Alecrast, issues on which the ABC has given them unfavourable coverage. I ask you to remember however, unfavourable does not mean untrue. The INN, the New Griffth Government, and the Sheepsta government, simply do not like the truths we present about them.

And as we said before, the basis of our case is that these attacks against our character damage the public's confidence in us, which in turn lowers the number of subscribers to us, in turn lowering our revenue. This is both as a moral victory to restore the public's confidence in us, and as reparation for our loss of revenue thanks to their comments.


As for the evidence.....we suggest that the Judges read it themselves.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=85676

quote: No comment has been made by Alecrastian propoganda machine ABC as of yet.

Here the ABC is called an Alecrast propaganda machine.

quote: INN being a state run coporation is not to formally recognise anything connected to the Alecrastian government officials, or ABC, which is termed as a propoganda machine by the Treaty of Mt.Gravatt

Here it is stated that the Treaty of Mt.Gravatt itself terms the ABC an Alecrast propaganda machine.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=84139

And here the INN both falsly stating that it had been cleared of this suit, and then goes on to repeat the slander and falsly claims that it wouldn't go through the courts.

	03-06-2003 04:46									#13
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Your honour, isnt the prosecution required to present witnesses, and to sum up at the end of the trial? If that is the case, I shall cross examine the witnesses, and not engage in a debate or argument at this stage.

EDIT

Objection you honour, the representative for the prosecution has an earpiece with which he is getting external information.

quote: As we said during our outburst, the INN is free to call us whatever it likes. However, what it is not free to do is to present that editorializing as fact unless it can back up its position.

In order to back up ones position, one needs to have a degree of logic and reason. Logic is perhaps one of the most powerful tools of the human mind, in that it can be used to back up, and counter any position one wishes to have. Thus that position, backed up, becomes an opinion. Whether one opinion recognises the validity of the other is entirely irrelevant, because neither is objective, thus one cannot hold judgement over another. In that sense, the position that the INN editorial took was merely an opinion.

Does one wish to prevent one from airing an opinion that is damaging to ones interests? Of course not. That is what we call free speech. If one doesnt agree with an opinion, then your is equally subjective, as equally valid as another. Whether it harms your interests or not is a matter for you to counter, for you to account for, and for you to recognise in the competitive nature of speech and business in a free society, or a free international community where one can air ones views.

Is it not the case that editorialising is a process in the media, which we will later show, is inherently, an opinion; a summation drawn up by the anchorman or the correspondent following the report or the film footage, or other source?

With regard to the national issue, that is wholly irrelevant here, we are all aware of the tension regarding Alecrast, New Griffith et al. The exception to that would be that one would expect news stations in in different nations, in whom there is a hostility to the other, to have that reflected in their broadcasting, as we shall show later. No news station is ever objective, no news station ever shows the truth, and no news station is ever capable showing anything but opinions, and evidence backing up that opinion. Evidence would also include the socio-historical context. All of this will be explored in more detail when we call witnesses.

The argument for persecuting the INN because it made a damaging statement against the ABC is a fallacy, because that statement is true to the person who stated it, and thus it is a opinion, which under free speech, one can air. Because news stations cannot report the truth, one assumes that anything editorialised is an opinion. People are free to make up their own minds.

Regarding damaging business interests, that is a matter for business. The corporate world is competitive, it is a battlefield, where firms live, die, survive and evolve. A feature in that competitive environment is free speech which can sometimes damage the interests of large corporations. However, as I said, a damaging opinion is no more objective than the opinion held by that company, thus that company should air its own counter-opinion, rather than attempting to undermine others right to free speech and free thought in court here today. The free speech has not stolen business or customers, it has not walked into a shop and stole a product, it has not walked into ones office and thrown employees out of the window, it has merely changed the dynamic of the customer market, and potential customer market. That happens on a daily basis with various other things, for example, competition watchdogs, quality and consumer watchdogs, the weather, the changing habits of the consumer.

All that free speech does is change the habits of the consumer, which in a free society, firms must with live with, or not live.

	03-06-2003 14:47									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Elijah: Each post presents a piece of evidence, for you to challenge or argue against. If the prosecution wished to call witnesses, they may do. If they do not wish to, then they are not obliged too. The same goes for the defence. You may cross any witnesses, and you may challenge or argue away any evidence. Then, after all evidence has been presented, it will switch to your evidence, and then on to the closing arguments. However all replies should be one post long. If you wish to challenge the evidence already presented by Jim Baxton, please edit the above post. If you do not wish to, then edit it to state that you do not wish to challenge that evidence, and Mr. Baxton can present his next piece of evidence. If you are not sure as to procedure, please come and talk to me in chambers (ooc: by PM /ooc).

Obviously it takes more than one post to have a witness, but there should be one post to ask questions, then one post by the witness to answer, then another post to ask a follow up (if necesary) etc. Then cross examination in the same manner. A witness is a piece of evidence, and you may cross any piece of evidence.

	03-06-2003 15:03									#15
	Remove this text

I see no need to call witnesses. Everyone was a witness to these events. They were public statements made by the INN network on air, and should be available at any public library worth its salt.

	03-06-2003 16:42									#16
	Remove this text

Understood, however, we shall be calling witnesses later

	03-06-2003 17:24									#17
	Got spare money?

Hmmm.....on further consideration and advice from Network Laywers, we may have witnesses to call later on. Do you have any objections to us holding off on that until later?

	03-06-2003 18:09									#18
	Put an end to popups!

Not at all, but we are still getting ours together, we will need to go last, as is the convention with defence.

OOC: How is the witnesses thing going to work?

	03-06-2003 19:34									#19
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Archaic: That is fine. Call them whenever you wish in your prosecution. Next piece of evidence or witness is able to be called when you wish.

Elijah: About witnesses, it will be much the same as evidence, one post to present the witness and ask one or many questions. Then one post for the witness to answer them. Then another post if you wish to ask any more questions, etc. until you have asked all you want, then the opposition gets to do exactly the same to cross.

Same rules apply as in a court of law (in almost any country) which means that the person calling the witness may not lead them, you must let them tell it, for instance you could not say "Did you see the defendant killing such and such on xxx date?", your would have to ask "What did you see on xxx date?", whereas the counter can lead. You can object at any time, by putting "objection" as the post title, and then writing what you object to.

I will write a court FAQ with the judges when I have time. I will be lenient in what I allow, since neither of you (IIRC) are actually lawyers IRL, but please do not put words in the mouth of the witness, else I will have to strike it from the record.