[2507.HQ] In-Character Hateful Ideologies

High Court
4
High Court of the South Pacific

[2507.HQ] In-Character Hateful Ideologies

Petition
Does the exception established by Article X, Section 3 of the Charter relating to hateful ideologies also apply to In-Character ideologies?

Summary of the Ruling
It is the opinion of the Court that Article X, Section 3 of the Charter refers to out-of-character hateful ideologies. Article X, Section 3 of the Charter sets out the authorized scope of military operations, with an exception for regions espousing hateful ideologies. While the text alone leaves some ambiguity as to whether the Charter refers to in-character or out-of-character hateful ideologies, the legislative records and historical context pertaining to that language provide an answer. In line with the intentions expressed by legislators since the ‘hateful ideologies’ language was adopted in 2016, the Court finds that the Charter refers specifically to out-of-character, and not in-character, hateful ideologies.

Justice Pronoun delivered the ruling, signed also by Chief Justice Griffindor.

Article X, Section 3 of the Charter of the South Pacific sets out the scope of military operations conducted by the South Pacific Special Forces. In relevant part, it bars operations to “attack, subjugate, purge, destroy, or vandalize any regions,” with two exceptions: “regions which espouse hateful ideologies” and “which the Coalition has declared an official state of war” against.[1] Today, we consider the question of what ‘hateful ideologies’ refers to. Does it mean out-of-character hateful ideologies from the real world, or in-character hateful ideologies from the world of NationStates?

The exception for operations against regions espousing hateful ideologies has long been applied to anti-hate operations targeting out-of-character ideologies,[2][3] reflecting broader “anti-fascist principles” in the law.[4] Now, Petitioner has suggested a novel interpretation that would enable operations targeting regions deemed to be hateful within the realm of NationStates gameplay. Through an analysis of text, history, and intent, we find that the historical interpretation of ‘hateful ideologies’ comports with the law but that this novel interpretation does not. That is, Article X, Section 3 of the Charter refers to out-of-character hateful ideologies.

I

Where possible, judicial interpretation begins with “identifying the literal, common sense meaning” of the law.[5] But the Charter does not directly define either ‘hateful’ or ‘ideology.’ Nor does it explicitly state whether it uses the phrase ‘hateful ideology’ in- or out-of-character. When the literal meaning of the law is insufficient to resolve the ambiguity in its interpretation, then, we must turn to “consider other issues.”[5:1] In this case, among those other considerations, the legislature’s intent provides a clear answer.

We have considered legislative intent in numerous past cases, under several different names. When the text alone does not yield a conclusive interpretation, we have examined the “sentiment and rationale” for passing an amendment,[6] the “reasoning behind” provisions of law,[7] or the “intention of the Assembly” when drafting laws.[8] Legislative intent, however, is a suitable mode of analysis for this case, not just because of its availability but also because of the nature of this case as one concerning the boundaries between in-character and out-of-character gameplay.

At its core, this is a case about the scope, rather than the language, of the law. We have not been asked to identify the literal meaning of ‘hateful’ or ‘ideology,’ but rather the context (in-character or out-of-character) in which those meanings apply. Indeed, the Charter maintains a “critical separation” between in-character and out-of-character functions,[9] not between the literal meaning of words within each realm but rather between what issues are handled in- or out-of-character. In-character government does not speak a different language or use a different dictionary than out-of-character communication; our laws are written, drafted, and debated in English. Instead, in-character government observes certain limits to its scope, and leaves matters beyond those limits to be resolved out of character as people rather than players.

To be sure, these limits are not always framed so explicitly. The Charter allows out-of-character moderation to take precedence over in-character freedom of expression.[10] The Regional Officers Act allows out-of-character regional message board moderators to receive regional officer powers that other officers exercise in character.[11] Both of these provisions clear in-character hurdles that could otherwise obstruct out-of-character goals like content moderation. But neither explicitly reference any sort of character. Instead, the boundary between in-character and out-of-character functions is maintained by intent.

In other words, whether the Charter refers to hateful in-character or out-of-character ideologies is, absent textual clarification, a corollary to the legislative intent behind that provision. Because this case primarily turns on the context that a law refers to rather than the literal meaning of its text, the circumstances and intentions behind the law’s adoption and retention become particularly relevant. Accordingly, in this case, we use legislative intent as a guide to judicial interpretation.

II

The legislative history of the Charter’s reference to ‘regions espousing hateful ideologies’ shows that legislators have consistently viewed the term as a reference to out-of-character beliefs.

The Assembly first adopted the language of ‘regions espousing hateful ideologies’ in November 2016, allowing the military to conduct operations destroying such regions. Though the military was not new to anti-fascist and anti-Nazi operations,[12] by October 2016, the military had begun participating in such operations as part of the Coalition Against the Ideology of Nazism (CAIN).[13] The Assembly formalized that relationship by ratifying a treaty of the same name on November 10.[14]

Among other provisions, the CAIN treaty included a commitment to “working together, when consistent with internal policy, to oppose Nazi Regions through military means.”[15] At the time, however, those operations were limited by the Charter, which prohibited or restricted certain categories of military operations. Specifically, the military was barred from colonization or annexation without Cabinet and Assembly approval, and was prohibited from permanently destroying or altering the appearance of other regions.[16]

Against this backdrop, the Assembly debated two amendments to change which regions the military was allowed to destroy. Roavin proposed that the military be allowed, with Cabinet approval, to destroy any region.[17] Sandaoguo proposed that the military be allowed to destroy “regions with which the Coalition is at war, and regions espousing hateful ideologies.”[18] In a competing vote, the Assembly adopted Sandaoguo’s amendment, and the Charter has allowed for offensive military operations against regions espousing hateful ideologies ever since. Both Roavin and Sandaoguo expressed support for combating hateful ideologies,[18:1][17:1] but Sandaoguo offered a straightforward and unequivocal formulation, but certainly an out-of-character one, of what exactly that meant: “We absolutely should help rid NationStates of Nazis.”[18:2] And a month earlier, in his October 2016 campaign for Minister of Military Affairs, Roavin had described “hateful” places in a similarly out-of-character manner, as regions that failed to reject “discrimination and intolerance based on gender, race, sexuality, etc.”[19]

Nor does the legislative record suggest that the Assembly has sought to cast the reference to ‘regions espousing hateful ideologies’ in a different light since adopting that verbiage. The immediate context surrounding that phrase was last amended on July 17, 2019, when the Assembly adopted defender military principles. At that time, the sentence referring to hateful ideologies was amended to its current wording:

Nor may the military attack, subjugate, purge, destroy, or vandalize any regions, excepting those regions which espouse hateful ideologies and those regions against which the Coalition has declared an official state of war.[1:1]

Sandaoguo’s stated intentions, when proposing that wording, were to “provid[e] exceptions for things like antifa and of course declared wars.”[20] Other legislators expressed similar sentiments. Roavin, for instance, noted that the military would be able to continue carrying out anti-Nazi operations because of the ‘hateful ideologies’ exception.[21] On the other hand, nothing in the legislative record suggests an intention to broaden the meaning of ‘hateful ideologies;’ indeed, the amendment served to limit, not broaden, military operations.

Alongside the amendment to the Charter, the Assembly also concurrently adopted the Resolution on Adopting Defending Military Principles, a constitutional law in its own right. The text of the resolution, like the legislative record surrounding its adoption, suggests that ‘regions espousing hateful ideologies’ was generally understood as an out-of-character category separate from in-character concerns. Specifically, the resolution refers to “hateful regions” and “forces of subjugation and destruction” as two distinct types of entities against which the military could conduct offensive military operations.[22]

Taken together, the Charter’s provisions allowing for military operations against hateful ideologies reflects a long-running legislative intent to specifically target out-of-character hate. Repeatedly, when considering the Charter’s reference to ‘hateful ideologies,’ legislators have expressed an intention to combat real-world, out-of-character hateful ideologies. They have referenced out-of-character belief systems like fascism or Nazism, not just as examples of hateful ideologies but as precisely the focus of the ‘hateful ideology’ exception.

The same cannot be said for in-character hateful ideologies. The legislative record does not indicate any intent for the language of ‘hateful ideologies’ to cross the in-character–out-of-character boundary and apply also to in-character beliefs deemed hateful. When the Charter “address[es] the possibility of attacks on regions that espouse hateful ideologies, it does so in the context of an exception to the rule.”[4:1] Past discussion and debate makes clear that out-of-character hateful ideologies are squarely within the intended bounds of that exception. In-character hateful ideologies are not.

III

In this case, we have been asked whether the Charter refers to ‘hateful ideologies’ in an in-character sense or an out-of-character sense. Accordingly, we answer that question; no more, no less. We do not reach the question of what ideologies are and are not hateful; nor do we reach the question of what regions do and do not espouse such hateful ideologies.

Our analysis does, however, reflect the Assembly’s intent evinced in records of legislative debate and context from other documents to allow offensive military operations against out-of-character hate and bigotry specifically. In line intentions expressed by legislators, ancillary to the text of the law, we conclude that Article X, Section 3 of the Charter refers to ideologies that are hateful out-of-character.

It is so ordered.

Submission: 18 September 2025 | Determination: 04 October 2025 | Ruling: 30 November 2025

  1. Charter of the Coalition of the South Pacific; Article X, Section 3. ↩︎ ↩︎

  2. Moonfungus (2021). Genua Razed in a Record Breaking Raid. ↩︎

  3. Tim (2017). “Post #9.” Revisiting CAIN. ↩︎

  4. Legality of Embassy Closure Operations Against Regions that Espouse Hateful Ideologies, 2106.HQ. ↩︎ ↩︎

  5. In re Designation of Constitutional Laws, 1819.HQ (2018). ↩︎ ↩︎

  6. Voting Rights of Service Members, 2104.HQ. ↩︎

  7. In-game consent for A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV, 2209.HR. ↩︎

  8. Enforceability of Article 2.2 of the Legislator Committee Act, 2103.HQ. ↩︎

  9. Retention Votes for Administrators, 2503.HQ. ↩︎

  10. Charter of the Coalition of the South Pacific; Article III, Section 1. ↩︎

  11. Regional Officers Act; Article 2, Section 5. ↩︎

  12. QuietDad (2015). The SPSF joins in with a major liberation of Anne Frank. ↩︎

  13. Roavin (2016, October 27). “Post #5.” Coalition Against the Ideology of Nazism (CAIN) Treaty. ↩︎

  14. Ratification of the Coalition Against the Ideology of Nazism (2016). ↩︎

  15. Coalition Against the Ideology of Nazism (2016); Article 3, Section (d). ↩︎

  16. Amendment to Charter X(3) (2016, December 15). ↩︎

  17. Roavin (2016). Amendment to Charter X.3 - SPSF. ↩︎ ↩︎

  18. Sandaoguo (2016). Amendment to Article X, Section 3 of the Charter (SPSF). ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  19. Roavin (2016). Cupcake Princess for MoMA!. ↩︎

  20. Sandaoguo (2019). Omnibus Package — Military Alignment. ↩︎

  21. Roavin (2019). “Post #36.” Alignment Act. ↩︎

  22. Resolution adopting Defender Military Principles Resolution on Adopting Defending Military Principles. ↩︎

2 Likes