If a person refuses to hold to AnewGoLaw, NewLaw, ExtraLaw or AnewGoLawGeographicalEdition, then it will be deemed that they have become unreasonable and are in breech of the agreement, and are in a position of permanent disagreement. They are sent to AnewGoCourt to plead their case to the AnewGoJury. They will not be able to post anywhere else while in AnewGoCourt.

If their case is unsucessful, as the AnewGoJury agrees that the Defendant is unreasonable.

This means they are not a citizen or resident of AnewGo and will be formally asked to leave. If they continue to refuse agreement of that, they will receive the status of AnewGoCensured. This enables the immediate use of The AnewGoErasureAct of all their postings or postings under identified aliases from the point in time of receiving AnewGoCensure. Past postings will not be deleted.

The only appeal can be in the form of private email. If the appeal is unsuccessful their mail will be considered spam.

Continued harassment, may need to be referred to the jurisdiction of the Geographical State of the person continuing the harassment.

Persons under AnewGoCensure here:

Format: First Id, Aliases

What is the need for that? If you were to uphold that idea, you would have to induce it for everyone of us who has picked apart those laws. :-)

What you are suggesting is a form of controlled environment. Governments cannot just write people off, like they were never there==== Any member of a society should be granted a full public trial, should any citizen feel free to contribute. Then there is the idea of using the AnewGoErasureAct against his postings. Did you have an extreme case of stupid today== People are 'contributing' to the AnewGo society and government. In no such way do you have the right to remove their work and ideas. If Pablo Picasso jaywalked, would you remove his Paintings from Art galleries? --KenSchry

==

Their free speech is not curtailed at all they can write anything they want and publish it anywhere, except here. They have just removed themselves from AnewGo that is all, as AnewGo is based on at least a commitment to achieve agreement. I think it may be Jim who alluded to the need with "If some don't agree with these most basic principles, do we really want them anyway?" in DeclarationOfExistenceDiscussion I can see that some people will just want to waste time and simply become unreasonable, which is still a classic manueveur in most court action, and will try to undermine any positive action that can be made, still just like the hoard of nuclear weapons maybe this will never have to be used. Yes I have made the appropiate modification.

Interesting I have spent most of my time here advocating non-violence and getting responses like "The majority of the world, IIRC, believes that owning weapons is ok, and killing people that you do not like is ok or for a matter of honor is perfectly expected."-StarPilot as an excuse for violence, and "I believe that we do need to allow enforcement with deadly force" - unknown, then as soon as I create a firm stand, and talk about the speculative possible need to erase some electronic text, they get offended==== Unfortunatly violence and it's propergation is very offensive to me!

==

(True i did forget about the need for AnewGoCourt, which still needs a lot of work and has not been tested much. Amazing I am human too.) 'When, In any of the pages here has anyone advocted voilence? JimScarver is Anti-War, StarPilot does ''NOT' like killing, so who said that? The question here, is what degree of punishment should be extracted for breaking a law. Your, Invoking the AnewGoErasureAct, only harms AnewGo in it's workings and runnings, by deleting ideas. What if Jim becomes a renegade, because he doesn't like the direction the AnewGoGovernment has taken. Are you going to delete all his ideas? No, the foundation AnewGo is built on will fall out==== --KenSchry

==

'*The misunderstanding of the use of the AnewGoCensure Act can be cleared up by "from the point of time of receiving AnewGoCensure." Admittedly it was not very clear and I have made it clearer. Past postings remain. Yes this is a strong law. It amounts to banishment. Yes I understand no-one wants violence on their doorstep, but there has been a lot of discussion in NewLaw trying to refute a position of Non-violence, which I believe is the basis of NewLaw. Hopefully this is a law of last resort. But this is what violence itself is, see how the constant reference to violence creates itself. Without me feeling that the undermining of a peaceful state could take place, this law would be unecessary.

---PhillipBannigan

Sounds like a police state====

==

How about:

If an AnewGo resident interferes with the rights of another resident, they should be confronted, if they do not sease and desist, they may be brought before a council of 12 diversified relavant stakeholders in AnewGoCourt, if the council agrees that they are restricting the freedom of other citizen and they still do not sease and desist, they will be exiled from AnewGo.

Agreed a case will have to go to court, but at this stage there is not 12 citizens to call on, so we will have to wait until we have 12 citizens before we can create AnewGoJury in it's fullest sense.

That last paragraph is actually a paraphrase of the first paragraph minus the AnewGoCourt and AnewGoJury.

Bad idea all around. I think this should be filed for rejection with either AnewGoCongress, AnewGoCourt, or AnewGoChurch, as appropriate.

AnewGo is proposing the complete censor of a person because he doesn't like them.
This is being modified to being 'a jury of 12'. Who selects the 12? When you reduce a community to a few members only, this allows for a serious stacking out of step with the community itself.
If a matter goes to AnewGoCourt, it is a matter under review by the community itself. AnewGo's model is TyrannyByTheMajority | as well as ConsensusByDefault. Which means anytime anyone has a problem with something, their second step (first is protesting/discussing the issue at the issue site) is to take it court for discussion with the possibly larger community of interested members. I don't see being able to set an arbitrary limit of 12 meshing with 'Everyone gets their say' principle.

And I would just like to point out that I can go get about 100 new posters, that would sign up, and vote however I tell them on ANY issue here, as a simple favor to me due to my participation in other communities, and my friendships in those communities. Of course, just asking for the new voters there would also expose the site to the jokers, pissants, and general pain in the rumps there, but...

I'm sure that having a sudden influx of friends of anyone under discussion would cause a few people with the complaint to throw a hissy fit. That changes the count of votes, after all, and most of those people are just going to drop by for that one issue. However, any action to disallow them would certainly go against the principles put forth so far here. Remember, anyone that has access to a computer and signs up is a full fledged member of AnewGo, after all. States so in the constitution. No other requirements.

'Finally:' Censoring or removing someone from AnewGo goes against AnewGo's principles. This is denying not only a member of the community their RIGHTS (you cannot lose a right, ever. That's why it is a RIGHT), it goes against the ConsensusByDefault (you are penalizing members who protest anything, as someone might decide they are being bad or disruptive, and take them over to court to ban them), and it works against the principle of Democractic rule (One group is silencing a minority).

If you want everyone to have a say in how things are done, you have to accept that other people are idiots, and are going to be disruptive, as well as (in your view) destructive, at least from time to time. Such is the price of making sure everyone has the right to express themselves. Remember, to guard that you will never be the one that loses your right to express yourself, you can never take another's right to express themselves.

---StarPilot

First, see my note on the page AnewGo about the confusion created by a person posted as "AnewGo".

Second, I think the conflict here is caused by a lack of formal process.

As a wiki forum for discussing AnewGo law, it does seem that banning someone for mere disagreement is a bit harsh.

As a set of legal documents which ARE AnewGo, though, certainly we need a mechanism for protecting those documents from people who disagree with "the fundamentals without agreeing to which one cannot be a citizen" (which we will presumably decide on somehow====).

==

We need a formal process to clearly demarcate law which is Law with law which is under discussion.

I propose that we find a more formal process for promulgating Law (more formal than just stating "here's a Law====: .... (Signatures: sig1, sig2)". For instance, is AnewGoCensure a Law right now or not? See CongressionalProcedure.

==

(also, I disagree with AnewGoCensure as it is currently put)

-- BayleShanks

re: AnewGo as a person, project, and nation. The original personal that proposed the Project/Nation used AnewGo as his handle here. Since that's what I know him by first, I still refer to the person by that handle. Also, the person still uses that handle here, actively.

Technically, our current process had made AnewGoCensure the Act, Resolved, when it got its first pro-vote (and no counters). The first protest put it back under a Proposal, non-binding, as the first protest showed that there was not a true Consensus on the matter (see ConsensusByDefault). Subsequent protests votes show that the majority that bothered with it are against this, and therefore this is currently an AnewGoRejectedAct as of this posting. (2003-05-20) All very Wiki ;-)

This isn't a procedural matter. The can be no censure of any Citizen or Resident, ever. Otherwise, your right to speak isn't a right, it is a privelage, granted to you by the AnewGoGovernment. Rights can never be revoked. Privelages can. That's the difference.

Your right CAN be abridged, but only due to the issue of keeping your right from trampling another's right. Only when rights are in conflict do we have rights compromised. However, that compromise is only enforcible when there is a conflict between individuals rights. In those cases, the compromise should be as minimal as necessary. Anything beyond that is excessive, and damaging to all citizens rights.

As far as the documents go... due to the tools we are using to express, discuss, document, and share our AnewGo documents, the documents are open to abusive editting. However, so long as the source control back end is protected and functional, we can always recover from a bored pre-teen coming in and changing everything to being a list of naughty phrases.

---StarPilot