Pride is of Asmodeus!  He doesn’t have much other theological education, but he’s sure about that one, so not being Evil means denouncing pride, completely and utterly.  There are already laws to stop the pamphlets, this seems all about pride!

He gets into line.  He wouldn’t dare say anything if not for the anonymity provided by an Archmage, but he thinks the Archmage’s protection is sufficient.

Carlota should oppose this as too broad. She really should. It would be the virtuous thing to do. There are a couple winnable modifications. In Axis libel laws require demonstrating actual damages or that the allegation is of a few types where damages can be presumed. 

She's absolutely not going to. If they pass this and then hang the pamphleteers that found out she was working on censorship law and decided to destroy her life, her organization and her duchy over it by falsely implying she was a diabolist and a whore, she will be happy. 

This sounds like it will be selectively enforced to the benefit of the nobles and will effectively make it illegal to give floor speeches. Lucky how he mostly wasn't planning to talk ever again until he goes home. You can get almost as much in bribes just to vote.

Is this just going to be for nobles and in cities? Or would they put you on trial for telling your neighbors which shops in town are honest and which ones aren’t? How can you trust anyone’s reputation if no one can say whether a man is lazy or violent or a thief?

He doesn’t like making speeches but he will if it might help.

“There is no reason for us to endure the anarchy of the last week. No other reasonable country allows its people to tear each other down in such vicious fashion. We cannot rebuild Cheliax when all of us working at that effort have to guard ourselves against spurious accusations at every turn. And without this law, even the most careful is not safe - lies are spread, or carefully phrased, technically true statements straight from a devil’s tongue. 

Well, we will put a stop to that. This law is sorely needed, and I am glad to help bring it to the floor.”

"This hardly needs a debate," Berenguer-Aspex says as he comes to speak, "but since someone has to do it anyway - this is a law banning slander. Every other country in the world bans slander. We tried having no slander law, and we had riots and diabolist accusations and hellish charges and good and honest men and women being defamed by liars for a little more money. Now if you lie about another man the law has something to say about it. It's a good law - every last person in committee voted for it, paladin and archduchess included, because we need slander laws and they know it just as well as I do."

Well, you won't be allowed to say a huge variety of things, but most of those are things that people would have eventually murdered or destroyed you for saying anyway, so really this doesn't change much at all. 

..... possibly it changes things for her since apparently her current strategy involves saying lots of things that people are definitely going to murder her for later and just expecting that they can't get away with it during the convention unless she specifically pisses off the archmage.

This proposal is deeply stupid and entirely based around catering to the nobility's wounded pride. It's also overbroad and the sort of thing that could be leveraged to legally attack just about anyone, for saying anything, ever. No wonder Vidal likes it.

But she does not currently think that telling the stupid nobles they're stupid will benefit her or her cause in the slightest. Even though they are indeed very stupid, unrealistic, lack any social awareness of what kind of crowd they're speaking to, and should, perhaps, adjust to the environment they have decided to settle in instead of trying to bend it to their fickle whims. Before they get ripped apart by another mob again.

Finally. 

"Old Cheliax's slander laws were just, wise, and permitted reasoned disagreement while expecting of men that they conduct themselves responsibly. If you wish to make a statement in the town square, it ought to be made very carefully. If you wish to make it in private, it ought to at least be true. That is all this bill says. I am grateful to the committee for their swiftness in bringing it to us for a vote."

Felip has already spoken enough in front of the floor, he thinks. He'll just applaud this one, and be ready to defend it if it faces any serious attacks.

She's really not sure whether to expect that it will. The radicals will be opposed, but their support will be downright helpful. The reasonable people...well, if the Archduchess and the Lord Marshal voted for it in committee then that settles that.

The idea that anyone can ever confidently know much of anything about anyone else is patently absurd.

She wonders idly if a spelled judge would accept it if you carefully stuck to only making claims about your own observations what things you've heard other people say, and not discussing anything about a person's general character that you determined based on those observations. Really, the game is, as always, just to break the law and not be heard, but she ought to at least know what the good habits are.

Wow, she hadn't been expecting the nobles to actually pass a law saying they can hang you for saying that Evil nobles are Evil nobles. She gets in line, but apparently a bunch of other people have already had the same idea, there's a bunch of people ahead of her.

Lluïsa hates getting called an Asmodean left and right (for one she's a (former) Mephistophelean, which is a cut above Asmodean, thank you.). But this specific bill... She stands to speak.

What a good bill. "This bill does the important work of protecting the people of Westcrown from lies and slanders, and I support it!"

Enric tries to decide whether to stand up and join Lluisa and Victoria, because they might need the help, or whether to stay down so it’s not obvious that they’re a group. 

"I did say that slander law was necessary and I support that, and I have no doubt that the Committee on Urban Order can produce a fine slander law, given time, but this seems overbroad to me. In particular, I note that there is no requirement that the statement is negative, causes any damages, or is known to the speaker to be false. Taken literally, a man must be exiled for saying before a large crowd that a Raymond's Pub has the best beer in Westcrown if the new-opened Aspex's Brewery - unknown to the speaker - has just brewed finer. Of course the magistrate should apply his discretion in that instance just as the law recommends, but in this statute the magistrate is explicitly told to apply the maximum sentence, and by the will of Her Majesty all of our magistrates have been laid under Geas to rule only according to the law as written, so I fear even the sensible provisions in the law to prevent this might fail at their tasks. I would suggest that it be modified so that ignorance should be a defense in private conversation, and also so that the purported victim must be able to make a reasonable case for damages, in order for the statement to be slanderous. With these modifications, I would support the bill."

Oh no, her liege-lord disapproves! This is why she should have avoided saying things.

See, she doesn't have to be a good person and do the right thing and propose changes to the bill, her allies who are less prickly about slander right now will do it. 

"Your Highness, I believe you are reading the sentencing provisions overly narrowly — the magistrate is permitted discretion in cases where a statement is made before a wide audience if there are mitigating circumstances, and a complete absence of real and plausible damages would certainly be a mitigating circumstance, as would the innocuousness of the statement itself."

Damn, Archduke Requeña continuing to outperform all reasonable expectations for nobles.

Yeah, he's making an excellent case for Plant Growths to Sirmium. Screw the Heartlands, they suck and contain people like Fraga and Vidal, she'll tolerate some really long flights out of principle.

"That in private conversations ignorance should be a defense I think is reasonable, unless it is the culpable ignorance of one who repeats outlandish accusations without a moment's thought to the harm they'll do. But what constitutes damages? Does a man have to wait for a mob to burn down his home to prove that there was harm from slandering him as an Evil noble who should be forced to flee?"

A grandmotherly Pharasmin gets in line.

"Your Excellency de Cerdanya, I would agree with you under most circumstances, but while I deeply hope I am wrong I fear I may only be reading the sentencing provisions as narrowly as a judge under Geas."

Wait a moment for that to sink in. "Your Excellency de Palnes, I think damages inflicted "or a reasonable and justified fear of damages" would suffice to manage that objection?"

Sure. He isn't going to pick a fight with an Archduke over that.

The Geased judge is the entire reason the proposal is full of language about how the magistrate should use their discretion, which would otherwise be obvious, but if the Archduke really wants to pick this fight he's willing to concede the point, more or less.

"Your Highness, if you believe it necessary to explicitly direct the judge as to what ought to be considered a mitigating circumstance, the Committee is happy to amend our proposal."

He edits the last sentence to read In cases where a claim violating this law is made intentionally to a wide audience, or published in print to wide distribution, the magistrate should by default apply the maximum sentence, unless the claim is revoked immediately or other mitigating circumstances apply, in which case the magistrate is directed to apply his discretion. Mitigating circumstances include but are not limited to the statement being innocuous, and the statement not resulting in either damages or a reasonable fear of damages and reads the revision aloud. As far as he can tell the rules of procedure neither permit nor prohibit this; he doesn't expect anyone reasonable to object. 

"Your Excellency, I fear you misunderstand my proposal. This revised nature would still make convicts out of men with bad taste in beer, after all the expense of a trial that would lead them then saddled with no fines, and while no normal man would do this our judges have been commanded to attempt to impersonate axiomites. If I was to create a wording myself it would be that the first two clauses be amended to:"

1) It is a crime to publicly make, aloud or in writing, a claim about another person that causes that person damages or a reasonable and justified fear of damages, or to clearly or intentionally imply such a claim, provided that the claim is scandalous, malicious, or not to the best of the speaker's knowledge known to be true.

2) It is a crime to privately make a scandalous or malicious claim about another person that causes that person damages or a reasonable and justified fear of damages, or to clearly or intentionally imply such a claim, unless the statement is to the best of the speaker's knowledge known to be true.

"Would this serve?"

He was really not expecting the Archduke to pick a fight over the revised wording, but if he really wants to pick a fight on the floor about it he is in fact an Archduke, and Jonatan really does not want to spend another day waiting for functional slander laws.

"Your Highness, my understanding is that the Queen's prosecutors are still permitted discretion over which charges they choose to bring to trial, and may choose not to bring spurious cases. With that being said, your proposed rewording is mostly acceptable. I would however revise 'reasonable and justified fear' merely to 'reasonable fear,' if that is acceptable; I worry that with the judges Geased as they are they might find themselves forced to rule that a statement was not slanderous merely because, unbeknownst to the speaker, their audience was not paying attention, and so any fear of damages was unjustified. 'Reasonable fear,' I believe, should be sufficient to eliminate spurious claims of potential damages that any sensible man would understand to be unlikely.

I am also worried that providing a generalized exception for claims that the speaker believes to be true would be overly broad, in Westcrown as it currently stands — as written it is unclear that your proposal would prohibit Select Wain's denouncements, given the judge's ruling in her trial that this convention ought to be considered a private audience. Would it be acceptable to revise that clause to 'the best of the speaker's well-founded knowledge,' so as to avoid punishing men who have made genuine mistakes through no fault of their own, while prohibiting men from repeating slanderous rumors?" (This is the sort of phrase that's kind of meaningless, which is to say that it's hopefully sufficient to allow the magistrates to consistently rule in a sensible way.)

He's copied out the proposal on a new sheet of paper; it now reads:

1) It is a crime to publicly make, aloud or in writing, a claim about another person that causes that person damages or a reasonable fear of damages, or to clearly or intentionally imply such a claim, provided that the claim is scandalous, malicious, or not to the best of the speaker's well-founded knowledge known to be true.

2) It is a crime to privately make a scandalous or malicious claim about another person that causes that person damages or a reasonable fear of damages, or to clearly or intentionally imply such a claim, unless the statement is to the best of the speaker's well-founded knowledge known to be true.

"Indeed. Thank you, Your Excellency, that satisfies me and I believe it will be to the great good of the nation." Back to the seat!

An anonymous delegate is up!

“Pride is of Asmodeus.  And thus Evil.  And thus bad.  Humility is the path to goodness and the heavens.”

He starts to leave the podium then realizes he hasn’t actually connected this idea to the discussion.

“I don’t see what this law does that the Queen’s decrees and censorship this morning doesn’t, other than protect Pride.  Pride is Evil.  So it shouldn’t be protected, especially not from truths!”

He isn’t quite sure how to finish now.

“So explain that. And fix the law to say what it’s protecting, besides and NOT including Pride.  Or damages to Pride!  Or… or, I say vote against this law!”

Dang, he’ll leave the speeches to Korva and Enric and Oriol in the future, this is hard when you’re up there in the spot.

Wow, what an idiot.

...

An amateur mistake assuming absolutely all Pride is of Asmodeus.  Iomedae has glory as a domain, so at the very least Pride in glorious victory over Evil is probably outright Good and at the very least non-Evil.

Also the pamphlets have had some absolute insanity so he doesn’t blame the nobles for wanting to be thorough in stopping them.

"Delegate, this law does not protect pride, it protects people. To slander a man as a diabolist, or a woman as a whore, is a wrong to them; it hurts not merely their pride, but their trustworthiness, their work, and in some cases their life itself. Innocent men of all ranks were killed during the riots because of slanders spread about them, and no man should need to live in fear of that happening, regardless of his station."

Oh but it's fine to slander a woman as a diabolist. Or, presumably, a man as a whore.

Cerdanya himself hasn't but he's visibly aligned with those who have, and goes on the Hate List.

He's left the podium and he isn't coming back to answer questions or ask more after how awkward he was up there, but he thought the pamphleteers denouncing names and calling people diabolists were arrested and executed so doesn't see why this law is needed to protect people.

She struts up.

"My man Bru, he's my pander, right? Lots of you have met him, and he does quite a bit of advertising. You can't say it's not scandalous to say I'm a whore. Now, one might say the magistrates can apply their discretion, as in the fourth paragraph, but my experience has been that magistrates generally don't end up on the side of the whores, even if when we're in the right. I think truth should be an absolute defence. The new proposed wording helps- I'm not sure it helps enough."

(Xavier is ignoring the whore and hoping she stops talking and nobody associates her with him.)

Coeliaris appears not to notice Dolça.

"We all have our little embarrassments, mistakes, flaws. It's not who we are, and public embarrassments can make mountains out of molehills. Some people have unfortunate pasts, or unfortunate relations- there's a delegate with the name of Thrune, for instance- or worship, at times, gods who might not be quite proper, or have friends or... similar that they wish not be known. These things are not who we are, but they can be trumped up into, let me say, fireballs, in the wrong situation. I strongly support this proposal as originally written, and I would like to ensure that the revised proposal includes embarrassment as well as damages."

(Jonatan thinks that "no saying anything that ever embarrasses anyone" is an insane proposal but fortunately Delegate Coeliaris is not an archduke.)

Well embarrassment isn’t Asmodean but it is pathetic so it would be pathetic to have a law preventing it.

Xavier is definitely not in favor of this one.

Well, that would be the slander law of all slander laws, so he's opposed.

Shame is a useful corrective to pride. What are any of these people even thinking?

Why? He's never heard Absalom was nearly that broad. She didn't seem wildly irresponsible or unwise such that she'd have great embarrassments. And it doesn't seem like something you'd suggest without a personal stake...

Ah. That's probably it.

This is even worse than the original proposal. She gets in line, in case it’s not shot down before she gets there.

He reaches the podium and takes a deep breath. The elf already brought it up, so there's no longer any safety in silence.

"My lords. Ladies and gentlemen. Honored delegates."

He takes a pamphlet from his pocket and unfolds it, holding it up for his audience to see, though most of them will be too far away to make out any words. "The title of this pamphlet is: The Infernal Genealogy of the late appointed Archduke of the Heartlands, Alfonso Antoninus Thrune. Incited by it, on the evening of Toilday last, men broke into the house where I was dining and murdered me along with many others. For me, of course, this was only a moderate expense upon my insurers. It should serve nonetheless to prove that I am speaking against my own personal interest when I say that it should not be illegal to speak the truth in Cheliax, even publicly, even if it is scandalous."

She is so confused! Why is the Evil Thrune noble just admitting to being a Thrune and speaking out against the "no calling Evil nobles Evil" law??

He's agreeing with a whore. Maybe they shouldn't have been surprised he's a Thrune.

Her Majesty in her wisdom certainly had a reason to appoint this man to an archduchy but right now Jonatan is deeply uncertain what that reason could possibly have been.

Every country in the world has slander law, Blanxart. This is a battle you can't win, whatever cards you play.

Good is all about redemption and forgiveness, so it makes sense there could be a redeemed Thrune…

Even with that, there must be some considerations for politics and appearances.  He must be really redeemed and forgiven for the Queen to accept him as an archduke.  Maybe Fernando should look to him for cues (after the Paladin of course)?

He suppresses the thought, but not fully, that this situation is clearly artificial.  It’s the perfect framing for a loyalty test to catch the people that don’t understand redemption and think family name matters more.

Iomedae, watch over this man who bears your name.

She thought they were supposed to think Thrunes are bad? Are they not supposed to think that? If she just abstains are they going to come after her for not voting twice in the same day?

The longer he knows his liege, the lower his opinion of Blanxart falls. Helping Voshrelka escape justice, speaking for Valia at the trial, and now this. It’s incredibly disappointing, especially from another who knew the glory of Arodenite Cheliax. 

Well. Maybe he will have reason to give that speech about not saying all true things. He'll wait to see where Blanxart is going before getting in line, though.

"The truth? Oh, yes, you may not have known: the name by which I was known at my birth was Alfonso Antoninus Iomedae Thrune i Blanxart d'Egorian. This pamphlet is an accurate representation of my genealogy. Of course, this was seven hundred years ago. There was a time before my name with synonymous with the service of Hell, and I am of it. The pamphlet expects its readers to forget or not to comprehend this fact, and in that—in that its author no doubt intended harm to my person and rebellion against my authority—it is criminal. But we have, already, statutes against incitement and treason. As for the matter at the heart of the scandal—that I am a scion of the House of Thrune—it is true, and I cannot conscionably forbid anyone from saying it."

"Indeed, most of this pamphlet is nothing more than a reproduction of a page from The Great and Ancient Houses of the Empire, a book which may be found on the shelves of any family of note in Cheliax. Would this statute prohibit its publication because it says that some people are Thrunes? Some, indeed, have tried that. Their name, as you may have guessed, was Thrune. The edition from which this pamphlet was copied, which so conveniently omits my devotional name, was not originally prepared by the pamphleteer. It was prepared by the same tyrants whose ignominy is now weaponized against me, because it was embarrassing to them that any member of their house was ever named after the foremost enemy of Hell."

"It is true that I meant to conceal my ancestry. My job will be much more difficult, now that it is known; the people of the Heartlands, who suffered under the rule of my Evil cousins longer than anyone else, may no longer accept my rule. But I can trust only in the gods of Good, and in the simple fact that I have never once served Hell or any power in it, and in my best attempts to be a Good and just ruler of the lands our Queen entrusted to me in spite of my frankly rather spurious association with the tyrants of Hell. I will not try to forbid my people from learning my ancestry; if I did that, I would only become the thing I claim so fervently not to be. To forbid a person from speaking the truth merely because it is inconvenient to the powerful is a deeply Asmodean impulse. Let us not indulge it."

"I propose, therefore, that the exception for true statements apply in public as well as in private."

"I second the amendment, as I did in committee," says Jilia from just behind the podium. Not planned, but good timing nonetheless.

Why is he picking fights he can’t win? And by admitting to being a Thrune and agreeing with whores, no less? It’s not a last ditch defense of something critical, even he admits this law benefits him and standing against it hurts him even if he fails. And everyone knows they need a slander law, even the damned Archduke d’Sirmium acknowledges it. It’s not suicide, not for an archduke, but his sympathies go out to every duke and count trapped under than man.

Acevedo knows better than to blame him for what the usurpers did but he’s really questioning the wisdom of appointing a man who’s only claim to rule is being related to them as an archduke if this is the quality you get from that.

So not redeemed, just not evil in the first place?  Still, he must be a pretty impressive person to be made archduke after being resurrected from the distant past with his family connection.  So worth paying attention to.  Lies are of Asmodeus while Truth is Good and Lawful, so the Archduke’s logic seems sound?

Thea doesn’t personally care too much, she’s not going to be publicly arguing or denouncing people (the convention should count as private), but Irori probably cares about truth, so she won’t vote in favor the law without that amendment.

Should she risk speaking though?

Message to Korva and Carlota: What is your opinion on this amendment? Do you plan to speak in defense of it? He wants to test the waters before making fiery speeches himself.

She is still incredibly confused! He's claiming not to be Evil and he admitted to being a Thrune, but he was trying to get Valia killed until Lluïsa stopped him — maybe it's like the azata said, and he's just incredibly bad at knowing what's Evil, so he doesn't realize it's wrong to kill innocent people???

..."actually, the person trying to murder your friend didn't realize it was Evil" might be the kind of distinction that matters a lot to an azata but she thinks it is not at all the kind that matters to her.

To Joan Pau: "The ideal law probably permits true speech in the public interest but I am not planning to exert myself here. Too strong slander laws won't ruin things the way too strong publishing laws will. The penalties are only harsh for the genuinely abhorrent stuff. If they're embarrassing we can easily amend them in a few weeks without a fight."

To Carlota: Acknowledged, sounds reasonable.

His opinion of the man is further improving. Gods, maybe the Queen actually picked... reasonable, decent people? ...for her archdukes. That's bizarre. Nobody does that.

Thanks Acevedo, yeah it’s upsetting. Here’s hoping “the people of the Heartlands” no longer accept his rule. 

Some good families go evil, he knows that happens. Usually when the elders die and all the young ones spent too long at school. Didn’t know the same thing could happen to archdukes, but it could happen. He doesn’t believe every story he hears though, especially not when it’s someone with a bad name talking. So he’ll have to find someone he trusts who knows history, to ask. 

On the actual bill, if some of the nobles are speaking against, that means there’s probably a chance. He’ll join the line. 

"Honored Archduke, I admit that were it up to me I would prefer to count such statements about your lineage as slanderous, even if they are true, as is the practice of nearly every country on Golarion. You say that for you this was merely a 'moderate expense upon your insurers,' and perhaps that is true for you. But what of your servants, slain in the very same attack that sprung from the pamphlet denouncing you? Slander is a threat not merely to individuals, but to the foundations of the public order.

But if you strongly favor an exception for true claims made in public, I am willing to accept a proposal to allow this floor to vote on such an amendment, after this bill has been passed. I believe it would be a grave error, but I" don't want another protracted fight with an archduke and am very confident it'll fail "would not wish to discount your opinion entirely."

People are asking her????

She does, at least, know how messages work.

"Uh, making fewer things illegal to say is better, but I wasn't planning to fight it. Everyone can already be brought in on something." It seems ridiculous to expect a country where everyone can't be arrested at will and be charged with something, if they're inconvenient, but limitations are still useful because they make it more annoying, and mean you can't arrest people for those specific things.

Damn, shit, is 'everyone can already be brought in on something' slander? Gotta get better at speaking.

"Conde Cerdanya, as the Archduke already said, those acts were criminal, and were punished as such. Also, I believe such a postponement of the vote would leave it as nonbinding, since it passed through no committee. Let us then vote on it as an amendment, as it was proposed."

"Speaking for myself: I think the Committee passed the narrowest slander bill it would accept, and that we do badly need a slander law, and therefore voted to advance it to the floor. The Archduke de Sirmium's concerns are correct, and both Lord Marshal Cansellarion and I spoke for much the same in committee, but the remainder of the noble delegates preferred to punish true statements more broadly; I had reservations, and now have fewer. With the Archduke de Heartlands's amendment I would have none. If there are other specific amendments to put forward, to protect other classes of true but scandalous statements before we pass it, I think we should give them all consideration, and then votes, just as we should for the one the Archduke has put forward."

To Korva: The goal is to prevent that from being the country we build. Did you watch Valia's trial?

"The murder of the Archduke's servants was criminal, Your Highness, and is being punished as such. The publication of his genealogy has not likewise been punished, because it was not criminal. Justice will not restore the Archduke's fallen servants to life, and to my mind it would be better if the slanderous accusations against him had never been permitted in the first place.

...As a procedural matter I am happy to put this matter to the floor in whatever fashion is most appropriate, so long as we hold the vote on this statute — in whatever form we decide to pass it — today."

"Hear hear!"

Ha. But his faction was the one who focused on delaying the abolition of halfling slavery for 'Oh, but this isn't well phrased enough right now, let's send it back.'

She doesn't think that means that Fraga's thoughts are this man's, just that she sees a chink in that faction's unity and might perhaps want to chip away at it somehow.

I attended. The judge held Valia innocent because the legal code was incomplete. We are completing it.

I am not planning to speak against the law.

"Honored Delegates, I am as you have already heard Weary of Slander against Myself and those I know to be Honorable. Imagine then my Mix of Emotions at hearing this Proposal so Speedily Delivered from Urban Order, its Membership numbering one who, Earlier this Very Day, Openly Slandered me."

"In the Manner of a Lawyer, I wondered at it. For it is said to have come Unanimously from that Committee. If it is so Criminal, Slander, then why was it to be Found in the Mouth of one of this Proposed Law's own Proponents? Is this Bill perhaps his Attempt at Indirect Apology?"

"Can Damages result from such Remarks as have been made of Me? Why, they bear Semblance to the Remarks shouted as I was Hurled in the River."

"I wish Wholeheartedly that they Cease and Refrain from these Remarks."

Theatrical sigh.

"But would I see this House descend into a New Style of Accusation appended to Every Statement, the Accusation of Slander thrown as Liberally as Accusations of Diabolism have been until now? Would I see Debate Stifled, would I see Delegates scheming the Prosecution of Fellow Delegates? Would I see, in short, the Nascent Stirrings of Galtan Terror?"

(Lluïsa has a somewhat vague conception of "Galtan Terror" as "that thing where people start guillotining one another instead of doing a nice constitutional convention".)

"I would Greatly Prefer to see No Such Thing. Let this Proposal not release a Weighty Final Blade to fall on the Neck of this Constitutional Convention. I have experienced here Collegial Debate with my Fellows who Strive to do Good, and do find myself to Enjoy it."

"If the Cost is more Unfounded Slanders against Me on this Floor, I pay it Reluctantly but Willingly, to Purchase something Greater, this very Convention itself and the Delegates here Assembled."

"Therefore if it Pass Here, this Proposal should at the least Exempt the Business of this Convention. I would word it thus:"

The Business of the Constitutional Convention requiring Free Debate, no statement within the Convention, including Without Limitation the General Floor and Meetings of Committees alongside other Convention Business necessary or proper, shall be Liable for Prosecution, unless it be Promulgated Publicly outside said Convention, in which case only the Circumstances of said Promulgation may be Considered under this Statute.

Aroden's balls.

Yes, thank you!  This is exactly what she would have pushed through Forms of the Convention, but Lluisa is striking while the moment is hot.

She gets in line to say something in support of Lluisa.

That would have passed on the second! That will pass in a month! The archmage said that they weren't allowed to try a failed vote again! You absolute moron!

Line up.

Some of us are on the Galtan radicals' "guillotine this month" list!

I don't actually think this is factually true!

Thea is obliviously to these tradeoffs.  She’s isn’t remembering about the no repeat votes rule, and she assumes Lluisa’s political acumen matches her lawyerly skill.

... ugh. Message to Lluisa, might work: This is Count Ardiaca speaking. I approve of your proposal, but I think it will fail today and will pass if it has been more than a month since the riots of the Third. Archmage Cotonnet said we can't re-introduce failed proposals.

She has had a little more time to prepare her speech, this time, so maybe this one will actually work.

"Those of you who did not grow up under Asmodeus — which I am given to understand is more than a few of you — might not be familiar with the sorts of insults the Asmodean nobility would have ordinary people punished for. It was common for them to have people tortured or killed for using the wrong title, for implying they were ugly or foolish, for daring to suggest they could possibly be inferior to anyone who didn't outrank them.

As written, this statute would enshrine that into our laws.

I assume," she glances at Delegate Cerdanya, who apparently somehow went to Heaven despite going after Valia and siding with the nobles who are obviously Evil, "that this was, somehow, an accident. But this law gives full discretion to the magistrates in deciding which claims are "scandalous or malicious," and while that works fine if the magistrates are paladins, like some places are doing, it doesn't work anywhere where they're the same people left over from Asmodean rule. Will they punish people for daring to suggest a nobleman is foolish? Cruel? Ugly? Cowardly? Asmodean? This law allows them to, or at least gives them the opportunity to do so, not just because they're nobles and they can do what they want but by writing it into our laws.

Delegate Puigventós e Valldaura said himself that he thinks it's slanderous to call Evil nobles Evil. Would he also treat it as slanderous to warn your neighbors to stay away from a cruel baron, if you do so in public? Would he treat it as slanderous to seek healing at the temple of a Good god after falling victim to a crime, and explain what happened, merely because the priests are not empowered to conduct arrests?

To be absolutely clear, I'm not saying we shouldn't have laws against slander at all. I don't think it's okay to falsely accuse people of being diabolists just because you don't like them. I definitely don't think people should stir up mobs against people's innocent servants because of something they heard on the street, that seems like a totally different thing entirely.

We should vote down this law, and if it passes anyway we should make sure it only passes with Delegate, uh, Blanxart i Thrune's, amendment, and Delegate Oriol's."

Reply to Ardiaca, spoken quickly.

Do you expect many delegates to live through the end of the month? Do you expect me to survive the radicals' Galtan Terror?

I expect more than nine out of ten delegates to survive the month, you among them.

Oh good, the anarchic Calistrian is against the proposal because it'll make it harder to incite the murder of the nobility, that should make it even easier to pass it, and to vote down the various ill-considered amendments.

Even as passionate a speaker as she is, and the moderation to her words she has learned, the mood of the floor is too against Victoria… she should talk to Victoria about speaking in favor of ideas she wants to sabotage… assuming Victoria’s sense of proposals to oppose matches Thea’s?

Victoria is really not a useful asset to her own side, which is more of an issue when she's on his than it normally is.

To Ardiaca.

Quibble then with the wording and I will withdraw for rewording. And reintroduce on the morrow if you have no plan and are merely a disguised radical seeking your own allotment of necks. The generosity of archmages does not extend to the executed.

I understand. He'll get in line.

She gets up to the stand.

”I think the main part of this law is a good one, but the truth needs to be permitted outside of private settings. It will be impossible to fix this country if we are forbidden from saying on the floor that more than half the officers in the army are corrupt or fools.”

Clap clap clap.

The Church of Calistria should be outlawed.

Agreed.

No, she thinks it's probably a good idea to not have people able to say "that's a vampire's granddaughter" even if it is true, since it inherently includes "kill her."

This whole law is all just a plot to get the entire convention executed by the nobles for saying things they dislike, isn't it.

Finally they can have something to charge the Galtans with! DOWN WITH SLANDER!

Well, she's not sure she means to lend her voice to the Calistrian's, but she'll say what she meant to say.

"I got up to say that I understand that the queen has granted an amnesty, for all crimes committed before the war. So be it. We will all see our justice in the end. But there will be no trials for old wounds, and so it seems to me that this law says we must never speak of them. Suppose a woman was raped, and can never see justice. Is she forbidden to publicly name the father of her child? Or, if she does, must she lie about her own part in it, to protect the reputation of the man who injured her? Should she hide, not only what she knows of others, but what she knows about herself?

My business is quieting the unquiet dead. The worst cases are those in which a death hides some great injustice, and the spirit returns, again and again, until the injury is known. Most don't need blood, but many need the injury to be heard, and recognized. Ban speaking of such things, and the dead must speak for themselves.”

Clap clap clap!

The boss already raised his issue with the law and got the other nobles to back down. So Iker really shouldn’t, but— he still cheers when the girl conscript from Army committee calls half the officers fools. 

This proposal is really terrible. First they're going after the freedom of the pen in general, and now this? For a moment she considered going up on the podium to argue in favor and try and see if she could kill it that way, but by that point Victoria was already in line and her worlds wouldn't have any effect rallying against her if they could also rally against Victoria on the other side. Instead she's just going to stay out of the proposal altogether, hope some of the mitigations pass, and vote against it without expecting to succeed.

Man, this proposal is terrible! He's so much better at slandering people than all his competitors, and now they want to level the playing field? None of the proposed amendments even help.

"Here are some words I've heard spoken, that left the wreckage of lives in their wake. 'Well, you know, she calls herself a virtuous woman, but her carriage was accosted by bandits on the streets last month and you know what happened after that.' Should a woman have no recourse if this is said of her, just because it is true? Must her life be ruined by malicious gossips with the backing of the law so long as they denounce people only for ills they really suffered? That's not how the law works in civilized countries.

'I don't really think that his child is his, as I've heard it rumored his wife had lovers while he was away'. Is the sincere belief of the speaker sufficient to make this legal to shout before an enormous assembled crowd? Remember, the proposal doesn't require the child actually not be the man's, just that the speaker truthfully report having heard it rumored.

'That man burned children to death in their homes, not that I recommend anyone go do anything about it'. Should that be legal? Do we really need to learn this lesson? Did we not learn it last week? Incitement requires intent. But things like this should be illegal to say even if you sincerely don't intend to cause the violence you inevitably will.

Some truths are private. They should be legal to speak, but not before a crowd. It is part of a defense of words, if they are true. It should not absolutely and fully immunize their speakers against the wreckage they can wreak. It is not a defense of repeating a rumor to say 'I heard a rumor that' before you repeat it. It is permissible for the victims of terrible crimes to want the details not shouted in the streets. You can still tell people! Just - in the quiet of a home, not the chaos of a salon. Everyone has the right to say the truth, but not to shout it to a crowd. If there's some wrong that was done you five years ago - tell your friends. Don't take it to the streets. It won't help, and it might make things a lot worse. We do all have to live with each other. 

I don't think it's scandalous or malicious to say that the army is not presently in a fit state to serve the Queen, nor that we will need to train a good many officers to make it suitable. If when you say that it's with malice in your heart then that's yours to pray on, but I expect you say it with the aim of improving the army. Most things that can be said in a scandalous way can also be said in a reasonable way, if they're worth saying at all.

Also I say - all of the people who worked with Valia Wain ought to be ashamed of themselves, having the nerve to come up here and without apologizing insist they know what people should be allowed to say. I don't know if what they did was a crime but if it wasn't a crime then it's because they had no idea what they were doing, so they should have a bit of humility and give their victims time to bury the dead before they start telling the rest of us how important it is to be able to say awful things like that." 

He smiles and nods at the anonymous speaker. What a sensible, reasonable man.

He will applaud at this anonymous speech; it seems anonymity was not a total waste of time.

So, when do we kill all of Valia Wain's friends, then?

She applauds!

(Anonymity is great because he doesn't have to worry about offending his Archduchess.)

This is all pointless. It doesn't actually matter if you can imply that a woman isn't virtuous. No one really believes that anyone is in the first place.

Really, it's a service, telling people which lies they ought to be telling now.

It's a good sign that the radicals all know they're going to lose and are sticking to proposing amendments, but that doesn't mean anyone with sense should be ready to let them succeed. There are a lot of things to like about the new government but the way that the rabble has gotten mouthy is definitely not one of them.

He'd gotten in line to speak in favor of the bill and then his fucking archduke decided to speak out against it. He's not nearly stupid enough to try and use anonymity as a shield, not against a fucking Thrune. Maybe it's not even safe to vote against it.

“This convention’s work is greater than any petty gossip or embarrassed feeling.  To do its work, it needs to be able to consider all of its delegate’s understanding of the truth.  If someone takes your true words and twists them and leaks them to vile criminals do you want to risk being put on trial for that?  The proposed amendments address most of my concerns.  As to this proposal’s effect on slander outside the convention… I ask you to consider… do you think giving up your ability to speak true words publicly is worth the protection against true words spoken against you?  At the very least, the proposal’s current language gives only a single example of a negative but non-slanderous statement, I would like to hear more examples of such added to it to illustrate the concept for any prosecutor or judge tasked with enforcing or ruling on this law.”

Yeah, actually. Yes. One hundred percent into giving up the ability to speak true words to prevent people from saying true words about him, if it's going to go anything like last time.

....admittedly, Valia recanted, and as far as he can tell recanted out of sincere desire to speak the truth. But one should speak the truth carefully, or even the cause of truth itself is not served.

What, is she stupid? Of course nobody cares about actually saying the truth in public, everyone knows you're just supposed to say what they tell you to. It's like listening to a child but he can't even suggest her parents have her beaten for her stupidity.

"I would of course be happy to provide such examples, Delegate Iroria. One might say truthfully of a man that he is lazy, or that he sells goods of a poor quality, or that he is unattractive, or that he is a coward, or that he often shows up late to his work. All of these are negative; none of them are slanderous, if they are not spoken out of malice. 

I do not believe your concerns about delegates being prosecuted for their speech here are warranted, provided that speech is well-considered and not criminal. But I certainly would not wish for every disagreement to degenerate into false accusations of diabolism, for example, as might happen if delegates are granted immunity from the law. This law does not prohibit anyone from calling another delegate's words ill-chosen, foolish, or wrong."

Is that actually sufficient?  Well she’s not going to speak out of turn, she’ll see if he includes them in the final text of the proposal before the vote so she has until then to make up her mind.

She saw Enric in line, maybe he’ll have a good point to decide the issue for her.

This guy would definitely rather that people think twice about accusing him of being a Mammonite, especially since it's true.

A law that will ban people from spreading malicious rumors? It's not a perfect bill, but it definitely has his vote.

“Can the things you just said wouldn’t be slander get written down on the law? It’s important to know who is lazy or dishonest or sells tools that break in a week. Those things cause damages, but if it’s true that a man is lazy, he deserves it if no one hires him.”

“I think it should be the same for some scandals too. I’m not sure how to write it into a law but sometimes… If a rich man messes around with all his servants, that’s not a crime if it’s not a fight. But everyone should know to stop their sisters and daughters working for that man. If a woman’s been going to town or the city alone, families setting up marriages should know about things like that. If saying something is a scandal, but it’s true and people need to know, should be able to say it.”

This bill is great! Almost everyone else will stop slandering people once it's illegal, and people like him who are good enough to not get caught will reap the rewards! Maybe he can even pin some of his slander on other people, get them coming and going.

"Of course, Delegate Porras, I'd be happy to add those examples to the law explicitly." He does.

"As for your second point, those certainly seem like matters that people have an interest in discussing privately. Warn your daughter about men to stay away from, in the privacy of your own home, but don't give a speech about it in the town square, don't print an advertisement about it for anyone to read. The law does not prohibit men from speaking truly to each other in private, even if the matters they speak of could lead to scandal."

Okay, that’s good. As long as keeping track of reputations is still legal, he thinks things should be fine.

Back home whenever someone started making up evil rumors about people you'd just get a bunch of your friends together and teach them a lesson, but apparently there are too many people in the cities and they all ban together to protect each other, so you have to send in the guards. And that other sortition guy made sure they can still talk about the important things in town. Sounds good to him.

Enric looks fine with it, so she supposes she’s fine with it?

Why are they still talking. Wasn't lunch supposed to be an hour ago?

Berenguer-Aspex is very unimpressed by these people. "I mean no offense to the honored archduke - but the people calling for new modifications to the bill are, mostly, the people who supported Valia Wain, who burned the city down a week ago. And what's there to say about that? We're here to make laws, not listen to a bunch of 'Calistrian young ladies' tell us what to do. Delegate Oriol - one of the non-Calistrian young ladies - wants to make what Valia Wain said legal after Her Majesty just made a decree that it wasn't, and what else is there to say about that? It's a good bill, but I'm halfway to saying I'd pass it if it wasn't, because the people who want this city in flames cannot win."

She doesn't — well, she doesn't want most of the city in flames, anyway.

"I'd actually like to make a procedural point," he says, "which is that I don't think Delegate Oriol's proposed amendment defined 'convention business' very well. Certainly talking in committee is convention business, surely talking in the halls is convention business, but is it convention business if five delegates meet to talk in a cafe out of hours and twenty men hear them? I think that's ambiguous, and if Delegate Oriol is willing I'd like to see it revised to clarify that point before we hold a vote. Delegate Oriol?" Can he get a quick response from her?

It sounds like a perfect question for Forms of the Convention, Thea continues to wish she had message. 

People only call him 'honored Archduke' when they think he's an idiot. It's not like he hasn't noticed. 

He wouldn't actually be offended, if Berenguer-Aspex spoke his true mind. He might decide the man was stupid, short-tempered, and unlikely to be persuadable by reason, but the protestations of no offense aren't actually preventing that.

It's not about you being personally worthy of respect, it's about Archdukes being worthy of respect.

If the queen, the great wizards, and the very gods picked some Calistrians to bring to the convention, there’s a reason. Maybe because they’re too scary to not invite, like that story where a queen forgets to invite a powerful fey to a party. But maybe because the nobles need to know what kind of thing people take revenge for. He’s not going to say that out loud though.

(He assumes it’s not the other thing Calistrians do, there’s no way Aroden and Iomedae were looking for that.)

"Your Point on Drafting is Well Raised, Delegate Ardiaca. I must Apologize for the Hastiness with which the Proposal was Drafted; I will Withdraw the Proposed Amendment that it may be Carefully Worded by the Committee on Forms."

And in the meantime, maybe she'll catch her own slanderers in a slip of the tongue.

"I have heard men here call me a bandit queen, though I have engaged in no banditry, and none of my men have engaged in banditry. And yet I do not think a judge would call it slander, when these men are so high and mighty. Who will the magistrates send to investigate, in the western hills, to learn the truth of things? Who will pay for those men to go? Who then decides the truth?"

Is she unaware of truth spells. She probably is unaware of truth spells.

Sefora has accurately hit on the basic problem, every additional law the convention passes that requires any discretion tilts things in favor of the nobility and the powerful.  This law even has a built in mechanism to allow the tilting by setting the minimum punishment by lost income!  Magically compelled judges partially compensates, as well a list of non-slander examples, so it isn’t enough to motivate Thea to strongly oppose the law.  

Actually… given the shortage of clerics, if she gets another two circles (maybe even just one more, depending on how long the cleric shortage lasts) she might even be among the powerful herself, which means she would benefit from the generally slanted nature of the law.

"Delegate Séfora, our magistrates have a number of ways to determine matters of fact, most relevantly truth spells. If you wish to testify to this convention that neither you nor any under you have engaged in theft, assault, or murder, I hope that no man in this room will tarnish your reputation by accusing you of banditry." That is to say, it is obviously not slander to call someone a bandit queen just because they've decided their lawless theft and murder technically doesn't count.

In any case, there isn't anyone in line to debate, so he doesn't need to call for a vote for cloture. "At this time, I call for a vote on the proposal — both whether we should enact the proposed law against slander, and whether that law should include the proposed amendment that would exclude all true statements from being considered as slander."

But what does that mean they're supposed to write on the ballot?

First a vote on the amendment to protect all true statements?

Against! Obviously!

He's pretty sure the rider hurts him more than it helps him. He's against it. (In favor of the bill.)

Carlota's plan for getting to go to Heaven this time was to, instead of not doing the right thing, do the right thing. But that's very hard, see. She is pretty sure that a more lenient slander law is Good. Also she does not want to. She would have expected that it would be easier, in trivial cases like this one, to do the right thing. It really isn't.

(She could abstain, but that's beside the point. The amendment's almost certainly going to fail. Her decision doesn't matter at all, except in that it's the answer to a question about herself. 

Ugh.

In favor. Incredibly grouchily.)

Probably she won't be in that much trouble for abstaining twice in the same day.

In favor! There's nothing wrong with saying Evil nobles are Evil!

She doesn't know the answer to this one! - oh wait, she can probably just ask, as long as she does it cleverly and infrequently.

Sitting this one out because it's not worth having or just not worth fighting for? she Messages Joan Pau.

He wants the funny mask guy to be able to keep insulting people! He votes in favor of the rider and writes at the bottom that he also supports the rule about letting delegates say whatever they want. Maybe if he's the only person to write about that it'll automatically pass.

In favor; it makes it more likely the other law passes, which is bad, but she's pretty sure it'll pass anyway. She'll vote against it when the time comes though.

In favor. The man said it would be possible anyway but she doesn't really believe him and in any case having to talk around a problem whenever you're not in a committee is really limiting.

Against. He'll vote to pass the bill even if this rider gets added but hopefully it doesn't come to that.

As far as she can tell, the extra part is mainly supported by whores, bandits, and lawyers. And a Thrune, which is almost as bad. Against. (In favor of the main law.)

Abstain. It's safer not to vote against his lord's suggestion but he can't bring himself to approve.

Against the slander law, in favor of the rider. Justice does not come to the defense of the - whole lot of people actually - and this is a blunt instrument.

Wow! You can make people stop being mean to each other even with words with the power of law. It is very ambitious. Kicharchu would not advance such a proposal at his own kobold-centric convention. But tallfolk have many things that sewerfolk do not and this can be one of them. In favor. And if we are preventing people from being mean obviously it should not be specially excepted to be mean in true ways.

For the amendment, and for the amended law. 

Speaking only truth is a common Law, it makes sense they would go for it. The public vs private distinction is confusing (why was the convention ruled private??) but the proposed law will still be much simpler and more obvious with this amendment. Without it, it's just a law about Not Saying Things Someone Doesn't Wants You To Say.

Obviously many true things can nonetheless be damaging, but... it still matters, matters overwhelmingly, if things are true. Jaume would like to build a world where everyone understands that it matters if things are true.

In favor of the law and the rider.

Not worth fighting for, he confirms, mildly but not strongly in favor.

(And he votes in favor of the amendment. He guesses.)

Yeah, for the amendment. Lluïsa is good at saying true statements; protecting truth as a safe place to stand is for the best. Lies are the tool of the desperate and incompetent, and while we're all (paladins excepted) desperate and incompetent on occasion, it's the radicals in the nobility who reach for them as a matter of habit. And it's the radicals in the nobility who a law on slander should target, however much they want one to abuse.

In favor, for both the amendment and the law.

This seems like a problem you wouldn't have if everybody you talked to had known you all your life. Someone could say the most preposterous things about Soler and everyone who mattered in his life would know to ask for a second opinion. But it does seem to matter a lot to the city folk.

If even the guy who's apparently a Thrune is in favor of letting people say anything true they like, though, that's got to go along with it.

Aina doesn't like the smell of the rider. It smells like a lot of investigation into a lot of things nobody really needs dug up just because somebody shot off at the mouth. No rider. Yes slander law though.

Iker will not survive a day if they ban getting drunk in a tavern and talking shit about anyone and everyone. Or maybe he’ll just go into debt from the fines and they’ll make him a slave. Which is worse. 

For the amendment. Against the law.

No slander, no hiding behind negations and rumors.

None of this makes any bloody sense. Against on the grounds that it would be nice if laws made any bloody sense.

Of course there should be slander law, but saying true things shouldn't be a defense against incitement! Against the amendment.

In favor of the rider to take the teeth out, against this broad and subjective law.

He will vote for the law as he said he would, but he thinks the amendment is a good one.

Alexandre has tragically been silent the entire time because he's pretty sure "I want to insult people so we should have dueling instead of slander law" won't net positive votes, but yes, truth should be an absolute defense.

(Shame Oriol's rider failed. Next time!)

Against the amendment! Slander is slander!

Jofre has never really been in a situation where this would affect him and also he can't fucking breathe. Abstain.

Against the amendment, in favor of the law. 

It is a true statement to say ‘Mattin Guerrero pushed a man in front of an angry manticore and is now squatting in his house’ or ‘Mattin Guerrero has captured a kobold and is keeping it as a pet’. And that’s just since he got here, back at home there’s rivals assassinated and vagrants abducted and officials threatened and guards bribed and thieves hired and… Be a good skeleton and stay in the closet, why don’t you? 

Arlet actually just wants to be able to say whatsoever the fuck she wants. No law. At least kick it in the ankles a little with the truth thing.

This is going to be used by lords and rich people and they could instead just get over themselves. Against the bill, abstain on the rider.

If whores and Calistrians and illiterate peasants are against this, that only makes it more sensible, not less. If they want to make it weaker so they can keep rioting as long as they can find some scrap of truth to cover themselves with, they should not be permitted to do this. Against the amendment, in favor of the law.

Against both bill and rider, won't anyone think of the poor slanderers?

In favor of the bill! And against the rider, to maximize the advantage he gets from his slander.

"Privacy" is one of those nonsense human concepts - air is everywhere, life is everywhere, the gods are everywhere. Pretending otherwise ought to be blasphemy.

Yes to the amendment. 

No to the law, laws are usually bad.

For the amendment, against the law. He got some good exceptions for important stuff, but it’s still not any of the crown’s business what someone says in town square. If someone’s lying about him or his family, he can deal with that himself. 

This bill will put another pit trap in the edifice of the law that the unwary and unlucky and unpopular will fall into.

So what else is new.

Against (and against the rider too, if you're going to put a pit trap it should at least not cost extra court time to clear away the corpses and replace the covering), but, like, she doesn't care that much.

In favor of the bill, against the amendment. The second choice was harder since being honest is a virtue, but you can just do that in private instead of rumormongering.

The pamphlets were funny but we already banned them. Jordi isn’t the type to make speeches to crowds so he doesn’t care. Abstain.

Blai is having a notably bad day, which, given the selection of days he has to his name, is a pretty strong statement. What does Iomedae want here. He doesn't know. She's not going to tell him. It does not seem in keeping with the spirit of the convention or the policies of his Church to just lean over and ask the nearest Glorious Reclaimer for the answer.

Abstain on the law, in favor of the rider.

Lies are of Asmodeus, and... yeah, this's a fine place to take a stand against Asmodeus like people are supposed to be doing now.  In favor of the rider.

And then against the law, because he still really doesn't trust the lords or whoever they might have doing the judging.

(The Glorious Reclamation paladins are in favor of the rider as people who all have to tell the truth at all times, and in favor of the slander laws because civilized places have slander laws.)

In favor of the law, opposed to the rider.

For the amendment about actually valuing honesty, in an attempt to limit the damage of this stupid law, but against this stupid law.

In favor of the law.

The amendment? His liege lord proposed it, which he should take seriously. Yet in that proposal, that very liege lord made light of the collateral damage in the attack against him. By one account, they set upon his hosts chanting "Bring out the Thrune"; perhaps the servants would yet live without that pamphlet being published. Perhaps the attackers would not have damned themselves without that pamphlet being published. He would not spend their lives to buy public truth.

But also he frankly doesn't know why truth is a defense in private. He can invent reasons why public speech is worse, of course, but are they strong enough that the old law was right?

No god answers his prayer with thought or omen by the time voting concludes; he abstains. May the convention be wiser than I am, he thinks bitterly.

In favor of the law. Abstaining on the rider, it seems like complicated trickery but he doesn't know which way.

Against the rider, for the bill.

Against the rider, for the bill.

Against the rider, for the bill. Voting with this many people is such a tedious process and he's not looking forward to the fact they have to go back to committees after this and get the rest of the agenda through.

Against the rider! No one should be allowed to call him a Mammonite!

He's against the rider, sounds like digging up the past to him. For the bill, of course.

The amendment to allow all true speech in private and in public fails 255 - 271.

....that's much closer than she expected. Huh.

Her vote came close to mattering. She's even more grouchy about that.

Well, that was a bad decision on his part.

Well apparently the convention was as conflicted as he was, even without personal loyalty weighing on their minds. He'll have to ponder that.

The radical nobility are going to expect at least 255 executions, then. Which is quite a bit more than one in ten.

Huh, that was a close one. The radicals need to get organized, and fast. Might have changed things here.

Thank… the gods. He was getting nervous.

That was dangerously close. In hindsight letting people vote on the proposed amendment was an error of judgment.

Maybe she should have spoken - or have spoken against it but badly - but it feels like the kind of thing she couldn't count on working, she doesn't really understand the nobles well enough for it to be a good strategy into a room of them. It being this close is heartening but it's still a failure.

She voted for the rider and votes against the bill, not that it matters.

Let the rule of the day be politeness, and white paint over all things evil and ugly, be they there or not. She has no illusions that the slander law itself won't pass.

Maybe it will stop the calls for purges. ... probably not, if the purges are conducted by law enforcement, which can still drag out anything it pleases. Probably it means more calls for purges, since there's no way to tell beforehand how many people you're going to have to kill to achieve some standard.

She votes for the amendment, and is surprised by how close it is.  After some hesitation, she votes against the bill, even with the examples, but without the amendment she thinks it leaves too much room open for favorable interpretation by the powerful.  She needs to think later about her odds of reaching third circle and if that is powerful enough to actually benefit on net from laws slanted in favor of the powerful.

He votes for the amendment, he thinks Delegate Thrune's argument was quite logical and Lawful Good.  He is somewhat surprised it doesn't pass... that puts Fernando above the 50th percentile on this loyalty test doesn't it?  He votes for the law, the Queen has geassed the judges to be fair and he can trust the Queen.  If she actually puts this law into action she might adjust it some more as well or add related decrees.

This law doesn't change anything, the nobles will already come after anyone that talks against them, you already need to keep it secret.  Still against and against (why did she have to vote against it twice, she's confused and hungry for lunch), just in case it ever actually matters what the law on paper in the capital says.

Asmodeus is full of lies and deception, so Truth is Good, so yes on the amendment.  He is disappointed when it doesn't pass by such a thin margin.  Still, there are 255 souls considering righteousness, maybe he should try speaking again in the future?  He votes against the Law, it still sounds like an issue of Pride even with the more sympathetic examples.

It is good for people to believe true things. He doesn't think it's particularly good for people to be able to say whatever they want with technical truth as a defense; it isn't actually very difficult to use technical truths to make people more wrong about something, as he believes they have just seen.

Against the rider; for the bill.

Oh thank gods can they go to lunch now?

No no now they're voting on the bill.

Ugh.

In favor, obviously.

Against! There's still nothing wrong with saying that Evil nobles are Evil!

She wasn't sure what she was supposed to think about the other part but this part is easy. In favor.

Abadar likes the truth or he wouldn't give her the special spell for it. That probably means he wants the amendment. And the rest of it.

In favor and in favor.

That was worth trying, at least. This will probably be misused but they do, very legitimately, need slander laws, and the censorship law was written with that in mind.

In favor.

Against, but it's going to pass. Everyone in the room who isn't an archmage will soon be endeavoring to have their enemies or perceived enemies executed. In many ways, it's similar to going back to law school. This is a very bad thing.

Ardiaca claims to have a plan, but it's most likely "be a disposable pawn of my particular conservative faction of the nobility as we have the radicals executed". This means bargaining for nondisposability, and for protections for those other delegates who belong to Lluïsa.

There is no point in putting any hope in the Queen putting a stop to any Galtan Terror; it's not thoroughly impossible, since the Queen is in some ways on Lluïsa's side, but vanishingly unlikely.

Around six in ten, Lluïsa is executed, and it's not unlikely they let her choose Hell over the Final Blade, it's not an entirely Galtan Terror. Three in ten, Lluïsa loses but lives; her effort should go mostly here, towards dragging some others out of the grave as well. One in ten, Lluïsa wins, having the radicals executed. No, less than one in ten, really. Vanishingly unlikely, someone puts a stop to this with only a few executions.

Carlota thinks it should be illegal to spread horrible life-ruining lies about people and that enough people have died of it this week and that announcing this one passed will be the single thing that will reassure her staff the most that she's not, actually, dragged them here to get murdered by mobs.

In favor.

(In Axis this could be a civil tort. But in Axis people have money. In Cheliax the civil tort, if the civil courts were even open, would amount to rounding up random laundry wizards, declaring them indebted by more than they'd earn in a thousand years, and selling them into debt slavery for it, which really does not seem to be a substantive improvement in any way.)

Truth probably should be protection for speech; he always hated having to keep track of things he couldn't say even if they were true.  In favor.

But then, the amendment failed.  The main bill isn't really a choice, a civilized nation can't survive without laws against slander.

In favor.

Passes, 310 - 155.

Élie is still abstaining from comments on any votes in progress, mostly out of principle, but also because he's ungenerously, uncharitably, and utterly unproductively sick of Chelish people. If they want to ruin their own lives with petty, inane pride, so be it. He's not letting them ruin the convention. 

"Now that the vote's done, I don't mind saying that I think you've made a serious mistake. Cheliax will want for nothing more than the courage to speak the truth, in the coming years. It's not my place to interfere with the laws you've passed, but it is my duty to direct the operations of this body. I believe that those of your proposing to outlaw slander acted in good faith, with the true intent of preserving well-earned reputations from malicious lies. Be that as it may: if anyone here tries to use this law as a weapon against your political opponents, I will be extremely irritated. I will not at this time declare that all speech on the convention floor is immune from prosecution, since I still believe you can make that decision for yourselves. Don't try my patience." 

Oh no. Is she going to be in trouble? Does it help at all that she abstained on the first one or does that make it worse?

Has the Galtan archmage considered that right now Cheliax is wanting for the freedom from the whims of Galtan archmages.

Message to Carlota: If we're going to have this law we should also ban challenging commoners to duels, as it amounts to a far worse sentence for the same crime. Between the nobility dueling serves its purpose, but—

Only since the Convention started has he seen so many people even attempt it. A druid, seriously.

The thing is that he could have had practically all of his insane radical policies if he had ensured that they made it a month without those insane radical policies obviously causing hundreds of murders!!!

Her archduke is in fact the one who read the room right and considered the 'truth' battle winnable. She should give him some credit for that. Safe Roads can produce a code for dueling that protects everyone with no interest in participating, I think, though I don't have one drawn up already.

Aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh so they'll be told after the votes if they angered the archmage but only once it's too late to do anything about it?????

Oh good the Archmage is protecting them!  And he sounds outright encouraging of a law immunizing floor speech like Thea wanted.  (She had thought it would not be allowed from “the laws of Cheliax are the laws of the convention” or whatever it was he said in his speech this morning.  Did he change his mind after this vote, or did she misunderstand him?)

It doesn't have to be immediate, of course. I had thought that 'don't challenge people who have no interest in being able to challenge people themselves' was already implied, but this bloody convention seems to have proved me wrong. A furtive glance in the general direction of the Marquis of Almenar.

Yep, he voted right with amendment!  He maybe shouldn’t have voted for the rest of the law without it?  He could introduce a similar but distinct amendment to make up for it?  He’s on forms of the convention and necessary alterations to the monarchy… and he’s already thought of a Law to add to the constitution he wrote for necessary alterations to the monarchy which will kind of address what the Archmage is asking for?  He can make public speech related to future elections, sortition selection, religious delegate selection, and nobility selection protected by the speaker believing it to be true!

Oh, they try the archmage's patience, do they. 

It is insane to put the archmage on the list of people he wants to see die a traitor's death, because he cannot have it. 

I have never heard of a code of duelling which allows duelling people who don't agree to participate but perhaps in the absence of any formal codes at all people have started behaving very loosely.

I will not at this time declare that all speech on the convention floor is immune from prosecution, since I still believe you can make that decision for yourselves. Don't try my patience.

Is that anything other than an explicit directive on how to vote under the threat of a foreign archmage's wrath? He doesn't think so. And that means that, while he can't speak against the proposal, he also can't speak for it.

No, agreed, that proposal is now political poison for anyone who doesn't want to be a Galtan archmage's client governor. He wonders how far the political backlash will splash.

Hurrah for protected speech at the convention!

It's not that the archmage is wrong, but she'll take this law and this morning's censorship law over 'no publishing' and she's pretty sure that's the trade on the table.

Also... Hmm. Yeah, there's no better time, the lunch break will end up short. Message to Ardiaca. Do you have a committee in mind for the future convention proposal? I can do it on Rights but that would be worse, and I'd like to see it on tomorrow's floor.

No, what Cheliax needs is for people to stop killing each other!

DEATH TO THE GALTAN ARCHMAGE!

Victòria is so confused about the archmage's political opinions. She's perfectly happy to ignore them either way but a lot of them seem like they contradict each other? Maybe she should see if she can find some of his speeches, like Vidal-Espiwhateveritwas was threatening to read at his trial.

Okay, they support free speech on the convention floor, got it. (You can't get mad at the archmage for not giving much direction and then also get mad at him for giving direction!)

Why does the archmage not simply tell everyone what he is going to do and send this entire silly group home.

Hey wizard. Hey wizard. You have another one of those door spells? Or one of those leave the country spells? 

Okay so, the archmage liked the note he put on his ballot, but he wants everyone else to vote on it rather than just letting Conradí do it by himself? Maybe he should try the note strategy more often.

It’s a bad look. But don’t panic like that, this guy isn’t Razmir.

No obvious one, he messages back to Jilia. 'Alternatives to the Monarchy' would look even worse than rights. 'Forms of the Monarchy' could do it if it had to. We could create another committee for writing the thing but I'd rather keep that in my back pocket for if it fails.

Well, sounds like the archmage wants her executed, and without even the theoretical ability to get her opponents executed first. He's thrown in entirely with the Galtan radical nobility and their 'well-earned reputations'. As is perhaps to be expected of a Galtan radical, but she had hoped—but hope is wrong. (Wrong means factually incorrect; this is a Mephistophelean, not an Asmodean.)

Chance of execution, one in one. Is there a trick, is there an escape?

The problem is that everyone is reactive and tense and stressed and scared and despite that mostly a fairly radical body when it comes to freedom of speech! The rider nearly passed! 

The situation just needs to not deteriorate for a while and then they can pass some amendments and everyone needs to not polarize into factions and -

She is as mad at Cotonnet as anyone but they have to support the Queen, they don't get a new Queen if they sulk about the present situation, and that means they have to support Cotonnet, actually, without appearing to. There is too much here to throw it away because they all dislike each other. 

"I have my disagreements with the delegate from Galt, as I think has been apparent this whole convention, and one of those disagreements is that I support this slander law wholeheartedly, and another is that I do not want statements on the floor to be immune from prosecution.  

 But I do think that this body might be tempted to distract itself from its important work with constant negotiations over whether various statements made in the course of our work are scandalous or malicious. That would be petty, it would undermine us, and it would be beneath us. And it would further oblige Her Majesty's courts to spend their time litigating whether it is scandalous to say there are a lot of bandits on the roads instead of catching and hanging rioters. I believe Her Majesty's courts are just and fair, and will consistently find that productive disagreement in this convention is legal, but I hope we do not waste their time proving it. 

Towards that end: this country is not presently well-run. The army is mostly made up of men not qualified for their roles or with no desire to perform them. This body has a significant contingent that has voted as if obsessed primarily with enriching themselves off taxes that their countrymen can barely afford. Many people are not sure under what principles the judges acquitted Valia Wain, believe they were probably deeply unwise principles, and are relatedly despairing of writing laws that will have the intended effect when enforced. Many of the people of Cheliax are frightened of their government and expect nothing of it, and many others expect or hope it to be a tool they can use to execute everyone who disagrees with them. Many people want the Church of Iomedae to replace the Church of Asmodeus, but the Church of Iomedae mostly wants us to help them solve their problems and turn to other gods for ours. Almost all of us want too many people dead for the country to survive us all getting what we want. The pamphlets were inflammatory not just because they were often full of vile lies, though many were, but because they were often full of astute and accurate observations about the incompetence with which the major objectives of the regime have been pursued. Healthy countries do not tolerate diabolists, not at all, and yet we have no choice about it because there are too many people who are in some sense diabolists to kill or shun them and still have a country at the end of it. 

I believe that under the law we have just passed, all of these observations are permitted; and I hope that having heard them spoken anyone who shares them will not too much hesitate in saying them yourselves. If you think they're slander, go ahead and say that now, and let's establish the facts of the matter when the test case is someone who can pay whatever fines are relevant."

Anyone want to claim that these are slanderous?

Joan-Pau is too busy clapping.

Oh, ballsy, he'll clap for that.

Half-assed, but half an ass is better than none.

What is Chelam thinking??? Presumably her title protects her but does it protect her so far as antagonizing apparently everyone she can think of—

Panicked message to Chelam, who Lluïsa doesn't really like but maybe she's just not a lawyer and missed this and shouldn't die for it—

Fines are but the minimum, the maximum is death or perhaps more, do not take the risk—

She’s drawing the line at slander in an aggressive way, to establish precedent protecting other delegates?  Assuming this isn’t the final snap of jaws of a trap?

Enthusiastic clapping, it’s the right response to both scenarios!

A bunch of people here were just literally killed by convention speech. Why should the standard for responsible speech be lower when going about the process of drafting laws, especially when irresponsible speech there has just been proven to be insanely deadly?

...this is a stupid thought. Cotonnet killed most of the higher nobility in the country, and Llei's entire family lives at his whim. Obviously the convention is not about what they want. Obviously it is a game, obviously there are right answers, and obviously the archmage does not care if there is any space between the right answers and the practical ones for them to actually survive in.

.....not a stupid thought, but an unworthy one. There have always been right answers. They have never been the practical ones. There has always been a space to live in anyway, even when it hurt, even when it wasn't allowed to exist, even when the sword hung above everything that mattered. There has never been safety, and is not now.

But the law passes, right or not. They will see, now, whether the Queen decrees it, right or not. Whether this is a stupid and pointless game that one can only lose at, or whether this is, in fact, the work of governance, and only as deadly as it ever was before.

Iomedans do not give up on what is worth having because it is not safe. Iomedans find what can be had, and fight for it.

He'll clap for the duchess.

Why is she pushing the boundaries on the law right after it passed?   Is that the Chaotic Good way of dealing with a bad law?  He was going for Lawful Good himself but maybe to appeal to the Archmage Chaotic Good is best?  He hears clapping so he claps along with it.

Wow, they actually are allowed to be wrong. Not limitlessly wrong, apparently, but some amount of wrong. 

No one wants to put a duchess to death for saying obviously correctly that the army contains soldiers who want to desert, so it's a good place to set the precedent. She doesn't answer Lluisa as it'd involve moving her lips.

"Right," she says after a silence of suitable length. "I would be embarrassed were this body to turn to attempting to prosecute one another for political disagreements. I am glad that we can pass laws that the Archmage disagrees with, and understand him to be saying that we have been doing so, that he has deliberately avoided killing the laws by telling us so, and that we can continue to do so, so long as those laws are about governing the country and not hanging one another. In Axis you also cannot pass laws that are about hanging each other, nor run around conducting selective prosecutions; it's really not that much of a constraint.

The most actual patriotism I have heard from a subject of Her Majesty in the last day is from Valia Wain, who was wholly overawed by the innovation of interrogators not torturing you and guards not raping you. I really think we can do better than her. This body abolished slavery of halfings today. This body wrote and enacted censorship and slander laws, and had two nearly tied votes on controversial matters of great importance. You do the work of Kings! You do it even sometimes over the objections of archmages! Act like it! By which I mean, have some pride, but also, have some dignity! Don't treat this like a game, because it isn't; don't jump to convince yourself it's fake, because it's real."

Victòria is pretty sure this is a silly thing to get hung up on, and not the point at all, but the Church of Iomedae thinks they should go to other gods instead about Cheliax's problems, and not her? Why?? Like, she's perfectly happy to go to other gods, she's just confused about why Iomedae would want that.

Enric doesn’t understand exactly what Aroden is doing, but he was always a complicated god with complicated plans. Like faking his own death and then becoming a human wizard in Galt and teaching them how to be radicals and overthrow Asmodeus.

Still trusts him, though, and it sounds like he’s right to. Aroden just said that he’s not going to let delegates get each other executed or dragged away for saying things in the convention. He’s not interfering with the results because ‘surpass your fathers and gods, not just obey them’. But he’s making sure it’s safe to try. 

Enric spent the last week worried he was going to be executed. He’d come to terms with never going home— it’s not like he has a wife or kids to support anyway. With the Sower blessing the harvests and no lord to take dues, the people who need him will have enough food even if he dies. But it turns out he didn’t need to. 

When you get up and talk about how serfdom is unfair or tell an archduke that necromancy is evil, it’s safe. Safe to try and even safe to fail. Valia made a mistake and so many powerful enemies, and the worst they did was send her to Lastwall. Victoria probably was let go without being hurt, like she said. Namia, who is aparrently Aroden’s wife, is bringing people back from the dead. Aroden is working some mysterious plan, but it’s obvious he’s protecting his own.

Sounds like the archduchess of creating committees understands it too. Took the risk herself to show everyone it’s still safe to talk up there. Enric definitely misjudged her at first. He takes the speech in but doesn’t applaud. Just listens, and stares at the mark on his hand. 

Well that ruins some half baked to embarrass nobles by winning damages from them commiting slander, but that’s fine, they weren’t very good plans anyway.  And she does appreciate Cotonett laying down the line that the nobles are going to have to actually try if they want to have her killed. It’s not safety, not when you can’t flee the country, but it’s a much better position than she thought she was in. She claps for his speech and for Delegate Chelam’s; for all she suspects the pamphlets have the right of it about her hand in the censorship bill, it’s not the worst bill imaginable and this is at least something to mitigate things.

Don't treat this like a game, because it isn't; don't jump to convince yourself it's fake, because it's real.

Something finally clicks and another thing finally snaps in his brain.  It had started with realizing why the port was closed, and now the rest of the revelation comes together at once.  The Queen is actually going to put everything they vote through into effect.  The constitution he spent less than a week writing to win some points in his monarchy committee could become the actual law of the land.  He needs to rethink some things… he is going to separate out the pieces of his constitution to make sure the critical parts that are actually good ideas can get votes through.

…he should have put a lot more work into debt relief.

The archmage has nearly killed the convention, Felip thinks. Even if the whole idea was misbegotten, he owes the man, and will do what he can to repair the damage, and takes the lectern after Carlota.

"Cheliax is in need of many virtues. Courage to speak the truth is one, but another is courage to have independent judgments. I fear that many of you will take away from the Archmage's comment that you voted wrongly. You did not. You were called here to vote as you saw fit, and this body exists to discover what laws we wish Cheliax to have, not which laws we imagine the archmage wishes Cheliax to have. He elected to call this body together instead of dictating the laws to our Queen."

He angles his head, clearly looking at the archmage, while still projecting his voice to the crowd.

"We all owe a great debt to the archmage. He perhaps has forgotten had gratitude may move men, but I have not. This deliberative body is ruled better by The Queen in her absence than it would be by her presence, as we may focus our attention to the law, and not to which speakers and statements cause her to smile, and which to frown. The people of this country have been forced into too many tests of loyalty to not have those old habits appear now. Already someone is considering racing to the line to propose that we repeal the law we just passed, in the hopes of earning your favor; acting out of fear, not loyalty to Cheliax. Already people are reviewing who spoke in favor and who against, guessing whose opinions are more likely to match yours.

Rulership is both by word and by example, and it is right for people to seek out the guidance of their superiors and to follow their attention. My fellow duchess referred to you as the delegate from Galt. If there are things you will not allow this assembly to do, openly grant yourself a veto and let us vote freely, instead of having to guess your will. If you wish this assembly to bow to your opinion on matters not procedural, accept the title of Spell Lord the committee on Magic wants to grant you, and then you will have a voice and a vote and may enter the debate. If you simply cannot restrain yourself from sharing your opinions, at least limit your comments to the system for anonymous delegates you have set up. But in the eyes of many, you have declared our vote a failed test, which I hope was not your intended meaning."

"We are here to write the laws with our judgment, and our wisdom in balancing virtues, not to take dictation from Elie Cotonnet."

She doesn't like this guy at all but she agrees about not just listening to the Archmage and the Queen because they're the Archmage and the Queen. She claps but not very enthusiastically.

He's mad that the archmage is telling them the answers, because it's going to make it harder to find and punish the people who answered wrong?

Carlota's still at the podium, having given the original speech.

It's not that Felip is wrong about how many people including both of them instinctively interpreted Cotonnet's comments, it's that she's trying to smooth fights over, here, not pick them. "And for that reason the archmage has, in fact, allowed us to pass laws that he disagrees with strongly, and will continue to allow that; we should take comfort in the knowledge that he does not like this bill, rather than be frightened by it. Now we know what happens when this body does not see in accord with the archmage, and it's that our bill still passes, so long as it is about running Cheliax and not about using Her courts to assassinate each other."

If Fraga is a madman spitting on the outstretched hand of the archmage he deserves what he gets.

Chelam on the other hand is dangerously naive.

So is this the part where the other two major players fall for the bait and get crushed by the archmage, leaving his boss the biggest name in the building?

The convention is allowed to pass laws, even if the Galtan archmage and Iomedaean queen don’t like them. Mattin likes that. Galtans and Iomedaeans are squeamish prudes, and they definitely wouldn’t like bringing back gladiator games and proper opera. But the upper crust enjoys opera and the rabble enjoy the games, he should be able to convince them.

Oh, for gods' sake. 

"Certainly I did not intend for my words to influence your vote – that's why I waited until after the vote had been concluded to speak. I had hesitated to share my opinions before for fear that you all would interpret them as commands: I see now that I was right and will be more cautious in the future. But, for what it's worth, the Duchess of Chelam is correct: all I ask is that you use the powers you have been granted to make laws for your country instead of pursuing personal vendettas. I hope and expect that you can manage this without my intercession."  

Are you going to bring back my dead son, then, Cotonnet?

He is not suicidal enough to say it.

Felip returns to his seat, watching the room. Do they believe in their independence, now?

No terrifying wizardly smiting? Not even going to use the fear spell like with that Acevedo noble?

Smooth recovery. This and the catch-and-release trial with the Iomedaean might be enough to get the message across.

Lluïsa was never interpreting any of it as a command, exactly.

Well, she still believes she's probably going to die after the convention has done all this government stuff, does that count?

"Since I am a man who also has the wealth to afford to pay slander suits, having killed and obtained the movable possessions of more than a dozen Asmodean priests and nobles back before the amnesty under a Galtan letter of marque, and since I think it is for the good of the nation if the clear, unambiguous areas of speech are established slightly further out of where they are now - let's have this legal case now."

"It is presently my belief that Her Grace Duchess Carlota of Chelam wants statements under the floor not to be immune to prosecution because then people would mock her particularly, and while this is a perfectly honorable motivation and one I am wholly sympathetic to I think it is probably not a motivation that tends to the greater good of Cheliax. I think that it was an unwise decision on the part of Archmage Cotonnet to ban nonlethal duels between convention members and one that inclines towards making people dislike each other more, not less. I think that His Highness the Archduke Xavier wanted truth to be a shield against slander and therefore suspect he made poor tactical decisions to achieve this, given how closely the vote failed. I think that His Grace the Duke of Fraga has spent most of his life outside of Cheliax and therefore I suspect he is likely to make and has made errors at this convention due to misunderstanding the present character of the Chelish people. I think that His Lordship the Baron Jonatan Castell de Cerdanya is a count, and will not charge me for calling him a baron anyway because he would like Delegate Ferrer to be wrong."

And then he'll wait and see if anyone accuses him of slander!

He is in fact not going to try to have the Norgorber cultist charged with slander for this, but he is once again questioning the wisdom of giving a Norgorber cultist a seat at the convention. Did Valia Wain consider, at any point, going to the Lawful authorities about the Norgorber cultist? It really seems like that would have been better for everyone!

...okay, that one's funny. Stupid, and not particularly enough to know where the lines are, given the two known ones are things that are true of huge numbers of Chelish people and which normally can't cause scandals because they're the default assumption about everyone, but funny.

Iker tries to make eye contact with Xavier, waiting for a nod or a head-shake.

Relaxed amusement, dismissive attitude towards the King-In-Irons, no need for murder, hope this is enough that even if head-shake means kill shaking his head will get Iker to clarify instead of going for murder.

(They didn't explicitly clarify, see.)

He hasn't done any Norgorber cultist-ing in Cheliax since the amnesty, see.

That is, in fact, probably helpful, even if she resents it immensely. Precisely because she resents it immensely, even. 

"I don't want floor speech to be immune to prosecution," she says, "because I think people will use that power to call for each others' murders, and if the body demands immunity I'll ask that it be from prosecution for slander and not for incitement. But I expect you believe what you said, and I do not think any of us could abide in a country where it was slander to be mistaken, and I hope none of us want to create one where it is slander to irritate the powerful."

Iker will nod and lean back in his seat. Not yet, looks like. Maybe he’ll be getting a ‘I forbid you to go after this guy, here’s where he lives’ speech, maybe the boss has another plan. 

Clap clap clap! His last speech was funnier but the bit where he insulted the count was pretty good. Also he's totally right that they should bring back dueling.

Fine, Ardiaca, you'd better have a good explanation for this circus.

Get a peasant to write it for you, ideally.

Here's a peasant.

He's taking a moment, though, to mumble his speech to himself to make sure it's right. How to not call the evil wizard an evil wizard, how to tell people they won't get tortured to death for disagreeing with nobles without accusing the nobles of being the kind of people who would do that. Why did he turn into someone who says things on the floor? But it needs to be done, so he'll do it.

Killing "Asmodean priests and nobles," he says, like he didn't also kill a bunch of innocent children. It doesn't matter whether he had permission from Galt (also, wow, she didn't know Galt did that sort of thing, she kind of thought they'd stopped with the killing innocent people thing? but maybe she was wrong?), it matters whether he was doing the right thing.

All of his examples seem like things that people definitely shouldn't be killed or exiled for! But the thing is, even if Delegate Cerdanya (Delegate Castell? The nobles should have fewer names) decides not to have him brought in on slander charges, that doesn't protect anyone else, no one is going to say "oh, Delegate Ibarra wasn't charged with slander, so everyone is allowed to say that sort of thing forever" if some ordinary person out in the countryside messes up their count's title. Maybe Delegate Cerdanya cares enough about not looking Evil, but that doesn't mean the same is true of Delegate Puigventós e Valldaura or Delegate Solpont or Delegate Blanxart i Thrune — well, maybe Delegate Blanxart i Thrune, he's at least trying a little bit not to look Evil. Definitely not the other two.

"Thank you to the nobles and the powerful wizard with the mask. It's brave to do something like that to show everyone else not to be afraid. So I say than you for showing everyone that talking up here and disagreeing with each other is still legal. So long as it's just disagreeing, not starting fights or accusing anyone of crimes. I'm up here for the people who need to see a farmer without magic or money or titles doing it too. Now, I can't say I have the money to risk slander suits. I don't. So you won't hear me saying any names or pointing at anyone. I have nothing at all to say about people. Because that seems like the safest way to talk with the new slander law. But also, because I didn't get brought here from my village to give speeches about people. They told me to talk about laws."

"I say the law ending slavery for halflings was a good one, but a law shouldn't say all men are free when we have indentures and serfs owned by a master. It's better for men to really be free, and we can do that and still have a good harvest. I said it before the new slander law and I'm saying it again now. In committees, I've said things like that, even when it disagreed with other people. I'm still alive."

"There's a mark on my hand from a powerful wizard. That powerful wizard just said that we're here to make laws, but not to kill each other with them. There's another great wizard bringing us back from the grave. There's a good queen who watches the trials. The queen and wizards brought us here to talk about the laws. We can see that they're not going to let us die for doing what they brought us here to do. Now, they didn't ask us to accuse each other of crimes. The queen already has magistrates for that. Certainly didn't ask us to fight each other. But talking about laws is safe."

Enric holds his hand in the air, showing the wizard-mark.

Clap clap clap clap clap!

Enric, don't get killed...

Applause, in support.

Now, see, that's an actually sensible attitude.

More clapping!

That seems like a good note to end on. "I now propose we recess for lunch, as we're several hours late for it and that may be straining our patience and sensibility." 

And to Ibarra.

Thank you. ...and if you speak the rumor itself aloud you had better be intending to flee the country and you had better expect I'll try to counterspell the Teleport.

Oh, come now, Your Grace, there's no need for threats. Why say what every literate person has already read?

Oh hey, her message is probably still up, too. And now she won't be distracting from something important, unlike the last time she realized this.

Free insight into the minds of the commoners, Count?

If you would.

While it's heartening to know that generalities and claims of poor judgement are probably not slanderous, the two statements we know to be so are not, in the minds of large parts of this country, particularly negative ones. They are neutral.

Delegate Porras speaks wisely, not to say anything of anyone.

These being inchastity and diabolism.

I see. Thank you.

Any time.

Carlota will depart the podium to go spend lunch taking urgent meetings, the day's not over yet.

Whyyyy does Blanxart like Ibarra. It's not that she wouldn't tolerate a great deal of private disrespect to get the Heartlands a dedicated fifth circle adventuring party but he'd have to start up the fifth-circle adventuring before he started up on the disrespect. 

(It wasn't a threat! The distinction is subtle but 'try to counterspell' is acknowledging he's the stronger wizard, which would be silly to do as part of a threat. It was a courtesy notification, because Blanxart does think the man worth the time, and Blanxart's strange but often not wrong in his strangeness, and so it'd be rude to not notify the man that she really does mean to get him executed if he says it.)

All of that was really confusing and alarming but apparently the upshot is you can say things if they're about the laws or if you're rich also about people, and now it's lunch! Maybe if he doesn't come back after lunch no one will notice. There are lots of committees. He could be on any of them. He isn't, but he could be.

She informed him that there was a set of actions he could take that would lead to her trying to murder him, and in the event that he refused to take those actions because of her threats he would be a coward and a slave, so he needs to establish that he isn't saying them for other, credible reasons. It's really very simple.

He seems like someone who might benefit from the realization that if you do things for impeccably defensible and righteous reasons all the time you can still end up destroying everything you ever cared about and it ends up being kind of cold comfort that your reasons were so impeccable, but she is not going to attempt to convey that particular realization. She's going to catch up with Joan Pau. 

"Pretty good morning, I think. Could've been worse."

"We almost won both fights," he says, quite seriously. "If we'd fought this out, too..."

"Yes. I should speak to Blanxart. I thought he was picking an entirely unwinnable fight. The current law doesn't seem terrible, to me. I guess I don't know how it'll land with most people."

He nods. "Yes, that sounds wise... it seemed reasonable enough to me too. But the commons didn't want it."

"I think it might be that among the things Asmodeus destroyed was any positive reputation, or any expectation it'd be valuable to have a society in which anyone could build one."

"At which point it's just a thing that their lords can accuse them of, not any shield at all."

"I have hired Tallandria to be formerly-Asmodean-commoner-translator for me. Maybe next time we'll realize that kind of thing going in. 

...where's Kin to the Chelish People at? I feel like every day we're chancing the law the Queen doesn't back by decree, and -"

"Beat me too it," he says with a smile. She hadn't mentioned that to him.

"Kin is ready every day but I want to talk to Cansellarion, if I can. I haven't been able to get a minute alone with him to tell him not to worry it's not a plot for world domination and I'm worried he will if we can't talk it out first."

"He might, yes. Maybe tomorrow I can host all the new Reclamation delegates for dinner and talk about where we and the Church have common interests, and you can ask him then. It can't be tonight, I am going to spend tonight endeavoring to stop the nobility's divisions from splintering into full-blown factions."

"Thank you. May all the righteous gods bless your work," he says with somewhat more fervor than usual. "Faction is the bane of a country."

"It would be a great ill omen even in a place much stabler than this. Speaking of which, I need now to add the conservatives to Safe Roads, where I have a majority but not a supermajority and will therefore have to hope they can avoid offending our sortition." It's not even hard to avoid offending the sortition but she has an apprehension they'll somehow manage to do it anyway. "May the righteous gods be with you also." 

And off to what will if all goes well be a wasted few hours of arguing over committee membership.