Law:The Offences Against Public Order Act

33RZ18

The Offences Against Public Order Act

Whereas, Talossa is first and foremost "a community of persons having fun," and,

Whereas, for nine months in 2003 and 2004, Talossa was anything but fun, due to escalating threats from persons now no longer a part of Talossa, and

Whereas, these threats included threats of physical violence, which threats had never before been heard or seen in a Talossan context, and which appeared at a time when no statutory instruments existed to deal with such threats, and

Whereas, the Uppermost Cort at that time refused to deal with these issues in the absence of statutory authority (although the Organic Law empowers the Cort to act in the absence of statutory authority - Article XVIII, 8th Covenant); and

Whereas, the standpoint of Talossan law must preserve, above all other values, "peace, order, and good government," and peace, order, and good government are impossible in a setting ruled by violence and threats of violence,

THEREFORE, the Ziu hereby incorporates generally accepted principles of statutory law abroad (Article XVIII, 8th Covenant) through the present Act, and confirms that they are binding upon all Talossans in the present form:

It shall be a most serious offence in Talossa to threaten to do bodily harm to a Talossan citizen, or to threaten a citizen's property, or to make good on such threats. Such activity shall constitute an "un-Talossan activity" for purposes of Article XVIII, Section 16, and the Cort is empowered to punish offenders by a unanimous vote to revoke their citizenship.

A person threatens to do bodily harm or harm to property, when such person utters or writes words which are intended to convey his wish, hope, desire, or intent to inflict, secure, encourage, seek, advocate, or acquiesce in physical or other harm on any Talossan person or on property, and communicates these words to anyone. A person commits the offence of harassment if he insults, taunts, or challenges another person or group in a manner likely to provoke a violent response. Accused must engage in purposeful conduct, which conduct is designed to harass the victim and which conduct is either alarming or repeatedly committed, and purposely produces alarm or serious annoyance on the part of the victim. A single act or threat, rather than multiple acts or threats, is sufficient to support a conviction for harassment.

Furthermore, it is not required that the harm feared by the victim be immediate.

Public officials are entitled, under generally accepted principles of law, to additional protection against harassment and threats.

It is an offence to knowingly and willfully threaten to inflict bodily harm or harm to property upon any public official. In order to be convicted, the accused must intelligently make a statement, whether written or oral, in a context and under such circumstances that a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by persons hearing or reading it as a serious expression of a wish, hope, desire, or intent to inflict, secure, encourage, seek, advocate, or acquiesce in bodily harm or harm to property aimed at a public official. The prosecution is not required to prove that the accused actually intended to carry out the threat, and the fact that the accused may have been incapable of carrying out the threat shall be no bar to conviction.

It is sufficient that intent to threaten existed. The subsequent abandonment of the bad intent with which the threat was made, is immaterial. The accused may present evidence that his statements were made in jest, as idle talk, or as political argument or hyperbole. The Cort may consider such evidence, but if the Cort finds that the threat was made, notwithstanding this evidence, in an effort to affect the victim in any way, the Cort must treat the threat as real. If the accused has himself stated that the threat was real and not made in jest, etc., then evidence to the contrary shall have no weight and such a statement shall be treated prima facie as an admission of guilt. The prior criminal conduct of the accused, or lack thereof, shall be taken into account.

It is a specific offence to call for the life of a public official. Talossa has a valid, even overwhelming interest in protecting the safety of its public officials, and in allowing them to perform their duties without interference from threats of physical violence. This statute is intended in part to prevent the detrimental effects upon public activity that may simply result from threats. Any threat designed to affect the victim in any way tends to excite a breach of the peace and is punishable criminally.

Because of the inherent nature of Talossa as a community of persons having fun, any statement or act approaching or approximating threats of violence shall be treated as absolutely unacceptable and criminal, as it is completely alien to everything Talossa ought to be. Through its actions, the Uppermost Cort has the fundamental power to determine the kind of Talossa we live in.

For purposes of law, to carry out any threat enumerated in this Act is an offence.

The present Act shall not limit, in any way, the powers of the Uppermost Cort to apply additional generally accepted principles of law to discourage and punish threats of violence.

Uréu q'estadra så: King Robert I