[2401.HR] Review of the Ban of Orcuo/FunnyMan

High Court
,
5
In-Chambers Opinion

[2401.HR] Review of the Ban of Orcuo/Funnyman

Chief Justice Kringle on behalf of the High Court.

Petitioner requested the Court for relief on the indefinite ban imposed on them by Regional Moderation on 23 February 2023 for “a pattern of discriminatory trolling across multiple incidents” (Nakari, 2023).

Under the Charter VII.4 the High Court is empowered to “declare any (…) official act of government, in whole or in part, void upon a determination that it violates the terms of this Charter or any other constitutional law” (Charter VII.4). This power is exercised only upon the submission of a case and the determination that it is justiciable (Judicial Act 3.2); that is, that the case is a valid and non-frivolous question directly related to the application of laws, and that it relates to an “official act of government”.

Petitioner has not satisfied either of the conditions listed above.

Their request was for the Court to lift the existing ban not on the grounds that there was error or that it was somehow irregularly imposed, but rather because they “have had time to improve from [their] actions” (Orcuo, 2024). It is not within the remit of the Court to undo actions of other entities for reasons outside the correction of errors; if any appeal is due, then the correct institution for that is Regional Moderation, as the party that imposed the ban, or in the ultimate instance Regional Administration, as the entity that oversees the actions of moderators.

Their request is also not a clearly valid application of the Court’s authority. It is not clear to the Court that is has jurisdiction over the decisions of Regional Moderation, an entity that does not fully operate within the bounds of the regional government and which enforces out-of-character rules of community conduct. While the Court will often endeavour to err on the side of a petitioner when it comes to personal relief, it would be remiss to assume for itself a prerogative that it cannot conclusively say that it possesses.

For the foregoing reasons this case is deemed not justiciable.

Footnotes and References

  1. Nakari (2023). Funnyman/Orcuo ban. Retrieved from Funnyman/Orcuo ban.

  2. Charter of the South Pacific; Article VII, Section 4 (2024). The MATT-DUCK Law Archive.

  3. Judicial Act; Article 3, Section 2 (2023). The MATT-DUCK Law Archive.

  4. Orcuo (2024). Request for Request. Retrieved from [2401.HR] Review of the Ban of Orcuo/FunnyMan.

Submission: 15 Jan 2024 | Determination: 17 Jan 2024 | In-Chambers Opinion: 21 Jan 2024