==============================  CFJ 1768  ==============================

    Rule 2149's obligation on a knights to not publish statements that e
    believes are false is in conflict with the knight's right of
    participation in the fora.


Caller:                                 omd

Judge:                                  Zefram
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by omd:                          22 Oct 2007 20:16:40 GMT
Assigned to Zefram:                     22 Oct 2007 21:55:39 GMT
Judged FALSE by Zefram:                 22 Oct 2007 22:34:23 GMT


Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

See CFJ 1738


Judge Zefram's Arguments:

The initiator is right to point to CFJ 1738 for precedent.  The arguments
of that case's initiator, explicitly accepted by the judge, address the
question of the extent of the R101 right thus:

|R101 and R478 are not explicit on what constitutes "participation" in
|the fora.  Applying common sense, the general purpose of a forum is for
|people to send information and ideas to each other, which is naturally
|done by sending messages that the author believes are true.  The public
|forum, specifically, has the major purpose of sending information, and
|is also the place for many game actions which are taken by means of a
|statement saying that the action is being taken.

This common sense does not support lying as a normal mode of participation
in the fora.  Lying certainly is some kind of participation, but in
much the same way that overturning the board is a form of participation
in chess.

I find that rule 101's right of participation in the fora covers at
least those forms of participation that constitute the ordinary way
to achieve the purposes of the fora.  The majority, and perhaps all,
of this extent is outlined in the quoted reasoning above.  The right of
participation might also extend a little further, to non-core uses of the
fora; I take no position on that.  However, the right of participation
definitely does not have unlimited extent.

The rules may reasonably regulate the manner of participation.
For example, they could require the exclusive use of particular MIME
content types, or forbid spamming.  Provided that such a regulation is not
excessively burdensome, it would not infringe the right to participate.
The rules may also reasonably regulate the type of participation.
The fora have specific purposes, and the rules may see to it that they
are not abused.  The right of participation in the fora is implicitly
the right to participate in them *for their intended purposes*.

The purposes of the public fora, as outlined in the quoted reasoning,
are not met by lying.  Indeed, lies are destructive to their purposes.
Information and ideas are poorly disseminated by untrue statements;
true ones are always available for this purpose and much more effective.
As for game actions, untrue statements generally do not have such effects.

There is no right to lie in the public fora.  I judge CFJ 1768 FALSE.