Preamble

In recognition of the fact that the main purpose of Norlund is to provide a safe and enjoyable place for residents and citizens to have fun while playing Minecraft, the House of Commons enacts the following Act to enshrine these values into law.

Anyone who talks in a Discord server controlled by Norlund or in any Norlund group in-game should—

• keep their conversations respectful and use common sense;
• make sure that they are doing things that further the enjoyment of everyone;
• not spread lies or rumours about others.

Norlund can and will moderate its public spaces to keep them free from hate speech and offensive communications. Norlund citizens and residents may resort to litigation where their rights are infringed.

Chapter 1 Preliminary

1 Short title

This Act may be cited as the Keeping it Friendly Act 2020.

2 Purpose

The purposes of this Act are to—

1. ensure that discussions between Norlund citizens remain friendly; and
2. provide guidelines for the moderation of all chat in Norlund servers; and
3. ensure that the law does not place unreasonable limits on freedom of expression and, in particular, on the publication and discussion of matters of public interest and importance; and
4. provide effective and fair remedies for persons whose reputations are harmed by the publication of defamatory matter.

3 Definitions

In this Act—

relevant Discord server means any Discord server owned, or controlled, by Norlund.

relevant text channel means any text channel on a relevant Discord server or any of the following—

1. global chat; or
2. any Namelayer group owned, or controlled, by Norlund.

relevant voice channel means any voice channel on a relevant Discord server.

substantially true means true in substance or not materially different from the truth.

Chapter 2 Defamation

Part 1 Prohibition of defamation

4 Defamation prohibited

It is unlawful to publish defamatory matter, unless the publication is protected, justified or excused by law.

5 When matter is defamatory

Matter is defamatory when it contains 1 or more imputations (whether expressed directly or by insinuation or irony) about a person which are—

1. likely to injure the reputation of that person; or
2. likely to injure that person in their profession or trade; or
3. likely to induce other persons to shun, avoid, ridicule or despise that person.

6 When matter is published

Matter is published when it is communicated—

1. by words written in a relevant text channel to a person other than the person defamed; or
2. by words spoken in a relevant voice channel to a person other than the person defamed; or
3. by words written in a private message to a citizen of Norlund or a resident of Norlund other than the person defamed; or
4. by words written on signs in a place in Norlund accessible by a person other than the person defamed.

Part 2 Protections, justifications and excuses

7 Burden of proof

A person who relies on any protection, justification or excuse afforded by this part bears the onus of proving the relevant facts on the balance of probabilities.

8 Protection of judges, witnesses and parties in court

A person is not liable for defamation by publishing matter in the course of any proceeding held before any Norlund court of justice.

9 Protection of public interest

1. A person is not liable for defamation by publishing matter in good faith for the information of the public that constitutes—
   1. a fair report of proceedings in the Norlund parliament; or
   2. a fair report of proceedings in any Norlund court of justice; or
   3. a copy or fair abstract or summary of any judgment (including its reason) entered into by any Norlund court of justice.
2. In this section—
   good faith, in relation to a person publishing matter, means publication that is not actuated by ill-will to the person defamed or by any other improper motive.

10 Justification of honest opinion

1. A person is not liable for defamation by publishing matter that was clearly an expression of an honestly held opinion of the person rather than a statement of fact where—
   1. the opinion related to a matter of public interest; and
   2. the opinion is based on proper material.
2. In this section—
   proper material means material that is—
   
   1. substantially true; or
   2. was published in a way that would attract protection under this part.

11 Justification of triviality

A person is not liable for defamation by publishing matter in circumstances that are such that the plaintiff was unlikely to sustain any harm.

12 Excuse of truth

A person is not liable for defamation by publishing matter that is substantially true.

13 Excuse of contextual truth

A person is not liable for defamation by publishing matter that—

1. carried, in addition to the defamatory imputations, 1 or more other imputations (the contextual imputations) that are substantially true; and
2. where the defamatory imputations do not further harm the plaintiff because of the substantial truth of the contextual imputations.

Part 3 Resolving disputes without litigation

14 Offer to make amends

1. The publisher of defamatory matter may make an offer to make amends to the plaintiff.
2. The offer may be—
   1. in relation to the matter in question generally; or
   2. limited to any particular defamatory imputations that the publisher accepts that the matter in question carries.
3. If 2 or more persons published the matter in question, an offer to make amends by 1 or more of them does not affect the liability of the other or others.
4. An offer to make amends is taken to have been made without prejudice, unless the offer provides otherwise.

15 Content of offer to make amends

1. An offer to make amends—
   1. must be in writing; and
   2. must be readily identifiable as an offer to make amends under this part; and
   3. if the offer is limited to any particular defamatory imputations—must state that the offer is so limited and particularise the imputations to which the offer is limited; and
   4. may include any other kind of offer, or particulars of any other action taken by the publisher, to redress the harm sustained by the plaintiff because of the matter in question, including (but not limited to)—
      1. an offer to publish, or join in publishing, an apology in relation to the matter in question or, if the offer is limited to any particular defamatory imputations, the imputations to which the offer is limited; or
      2. an offer to pay compensation for any economic or non-economic loss of the plaintiff; or
      3. the particulars of any correction or apology made, or action taken, before the date of the offer.
2. Without limiting subsection (1)(4)(2), an offer to pay compensation may comprise or include any 1 or more of the following—
   1. an offer to pay a stated amount;
   2. an offer to pay an amount to be agreed between the publisher and the plaintiff;
   3. an offer to pay an amount determined by a court.
3. If an offer to make amends is accepted, a court may, on the application of the plaintiff or publisher, determine—
   1. if the offer provides for a court to determine the amount of compensation payable under the offer—the amount of compensation to be paid under the offer; and
   2. any other question that arises about what must be done to carry out the terms of the offer.

16 Effect of acceptance of offer to make amends

1. This section applies if a publisher carries out the terms of an offer to make amends that is accepted by a plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff can not assert, continue or enforce an action for defamation against the publisher in relation to the matter.

17 Effect of failure to accept reasonable offer to make amends

The court must consider, when determining damages, the fact that a plaintiff failed to accept a reasonable offer to make amends by a publisher.

18 Effect of apology on liability for defamation

An apology made by or on behalf of a person in connection with any defamatory matter alleged to have been published by the person—

1. does not constitute an express or implied admission of fault or liability by the person in connection with that matter; and
2. is not relevant to the determination of fault or liability in connection with that matter.

Part 4 Resolving disputes by litigation

19 Defamed persons may apply

A Norlund citizen or resident may apply to the Federal Court to—

1. decide whether defamatory matter was published; and
2. determine whether any protection, justification or excuse applies.

20 Court may order compensation

1. The court may order compensation if it determines that a person suffered damage (including non-economic damage) as a result of a breach of section 4.
2. The court must only order compensation that is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.
3. The court may order nominal damages not exceeding the value of 8 stamina if the plaintiff cannot prove economic loss.

Chapter 3 Moderation

Part 1 Preliminary

21 Application

This chapter applies to every channel (whether text or voice) in a relevant Discord server.

22 Definitions

In this chapter—

prohibited behaviour means any behaviour proscribed by this part.

23 Harassment and bullying proscribed

A person must not engage in behaviour that could reasonably be described as—

1. targeted harassment; or
2. bullying.

Examples of bullying—
name calling, insults, teasing, intimidation, mimicking or verbal abuse

24 Discrimination proscribed

1. A person must not engage in behaviour that could reasonably be described as direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of 1 or more of the following attributes—
   1. sex;
   2. relationship status;
   3. pregnancy;
   4. parental status;
   5. breastfeeding;
   6. age;
   7. race or ethnicity;
   8. impairment;
   9. religious belief or religious activity;
   10. political belief or activity;
   11. trade union activity;
   12. lawful sexual activity;
   13. gender identity;
   14. sexuality;
   15. family responsibilities;
   16. association with, or relation to, a person identified on the basis of any of the above attributes.
2. In this section—
   on the basis of an attribute includes on the basis of—
   1. a characteristic that a person with any of the attributes generally has; or
   2. a characteristic that is often imputed to a person with any of the attributes; or
   3. an attribute that a person is presumed to have, or to have had at any time, by the person discriminating; or
   4. an attribute that a person had, even if the person did not have it at the time of the discrimination.

24A Disrupting the House proscribed

1. This section applies within any channel the dominant purpose of which is communication for House of Commons business.
2. A person must not—
   1. disrupt business in a burdensome manner; or
   2. engage in name calling or levy insults; or
   3. use abusive and insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder.

Part 2 Enforcement by moderators

25 Moderating prohibited behaviour

1. A relevant person may, upon becoming aware of a person (the violator) engaging in prohibited behaviour, take 1 or more of the following actions—
   1. issue a written warning to the violator;
   2. temporarily mute the violator;
   3. if the violator is not a resident or citizen of Norlund—kick or ban the violator.
2. In this section—
   relevant person means a member of the Federal Council, the King or a judge of any Norlund court.

Part 3 Enforcement by court

26 Application for a stop being unfriendly order

1. A person who reasonably believes that they have been subject prohibited behaviour (the person concerned) may apply to the Federal Court for a stop being unfriendly order.
2. A member of the Federal Council or the King (the applicant) may apply to the Federal Court for a stop being unfriendly order to protect a person (the person concerned) who the applicant reasonably believes has been subject to prohibited behaviour.

27 Court may make stop being unfriendly order

1. The Federal Court may make any order it considers appropriate (other than an order requiring payment of any amount) to prevent prohibited behaviour if it is satisfied that—
   1. the person concerned has been subject to prohibited behaviour by an individual (the violator) or a group of individuals (the violators); and
   2. there is a risk that the person concerned will continue to be subject to prohibited behaviour by the violator or violators.
2. Without limiting subsection (1), if the prohibited behaviour is of a level so grave that it warrants serious condemnation, the court may order that a violator's citizenship or residency be revoked.
3. For the purposes of subsection (2), the court must consider—
   1. whether any previous stop being unfriendly order has been made against the violator (whether or not related to the person concerned) and whether any of its terms have been contravened; and
   2. the seriousness of offence caused by the language used by the violator; and
   3. any pattern of prohibited behaviour by the violator, whether or not related to the person concerned; and
   4. the violator's connections and ties to Norlund; and
   5. the public's right to freedom of expression, as appropriately limited by this Act.
4. A person must to whom an order under subsection (1) applies must not contravene a term of that order.