In re Sixth Discord Act 4§12-13 2025 SDCR 16
In re Article 4 s12-13 of the Sixth Discord Act [2025] SDCR 16
| Date of judgment | 13th November 2025 |
| Judges |
|
| Held | Article 4§12-13 of the Sixth Discord Act are constitutional. |
| Ruling | 3-0 |
| Applicable precedent | For equal protection to apply, the subjects or matters regulated by a law ought to be equal in nature. The protection of debts does not include the right to maintain subscriptions with the state forever. |
MAJORITY OPINION by Judge Brandmal
(with Judge Terak and Judge Benbookworm agreeing)
Introduction
[1] The petitioner seeks judicial review of the constitutionality of the Sixth Discord Act Article 4 §12-13 on the basis that it violates the right to equality before the law in Article 17 of the Constitution and the protection of citizens’ debts in Article 23 of the Constitution. The challenged text relates to the ownership and maintenance of channels that are purchased by private citizens:
“§12. A fee shall be required to be paid by all owners of a privately owned channel every two months, within the first week of every month whose enumeration is an uneven number, unless that channel is a party channel. §12.1. The size of the fee shall be set via internal Department of Expansion policy. §13. When the aforementioned fee is not paid by the owner of a channel within the specified timeframe, their privately owned channel must be deleted. They shall not receive compensation as per §11 of this Article.”
Arguments from the petitioner
[2] The petitioner argues that §12 making an exemption to the recurring channel fee for political parties is unequal protection for political beliefs, violating Article 17 of the Constitution.
[3] The petitioner puts forward that §13 permitting the deletion of channels when the owner is behind on payments means the government is voiding an agreement without giving equivalent compensation, violating Article 23 of the Constitution.
Arguments from the respondent
[4] The respondent puts forward that distinctions based on function or necessity, rather than immutable or personal characteristics, do not offend constitutional equality.
Case law, considerations, etc
[5] The first argument of the petitioner lacks merit, as the law is content neutral and therefore does not unlawfully infringe on the equal protection of political beliefs.
MAJORITY OPINION by Judge Terak
(with Judge Brandmal and Judge Benbookworm agreeing)
[6] Regarding the discrimination between parties and nonparties, while things that are the same need to be treated the same before the law and its courts, things that are different have to be treated differently, or at the very least have no right to be treated the same.
[7] The Petitioner posits that political parties and regular citizens engaging in commercial trade are the same. That position is not convincing.
[8] Political parties serve an essential purpose for the state. They aggregate political opinions, provide political candidates, help shape the political discourse and provide political information to the citizens of SimDemocracy. Ensuring their function by assisting them in their duties is a valid goal for the state to pursue. As long as all parties are treated equally, no unequal treatment happens. The state is in its right to assist and support the democratic process by waiving fees for party channels. This does not spawn the need to sponsor the private economic activities of its citizens on an individual basis.
MAJORITY OPINION by Judge Brandmal
(with Judge Terak and Judge Benbookworm agreeing)
[9] The second argument of the petitioner is also obviously without merit. The government is not voiding any debt when cancelling a “purchase” of a channel, because the underlying contract is not a purchase in a strict technical sense, but rather a subscription in nature. Hence, once the subscription is not paid any longer, it ceases to exist in the sense that the subscriber's right to use a given channel is voided. This practice cannot be characterised as voiding debt, so long as the person receives the channel for the time paid.
Decision
[10] The Sixth Discord Act Article 4§12-13 does not violate the right to equality before the law in Article 17 of the Constitution nor the protection of citizens’ debts in Article 23 of the Constitution.