SD v 1377267195838599260 2025 SDIC 7

SD v 1377267195838599260 [2025] SDIC 7

Date of judgment	2nd August 2025
Judge	Judge ppatpat
Cause	Certification and Sentence under Art. 22 §2.4 of the Constitution
Verdict	One Permanent Ban
Applicable persuasive precedent	There exists a two-limb test to differentiate doxxing from “serious doxxing” (serious risk + irremediability), [5]

Certification and Sentencing by Judge ppatpat

Introduction

[1] The State through the State Attorney's Office Director Matt Cheney requested a Certification and Sentence pursuant to Art. 22 § 2.4 of the Constitution.

[2] As Evidence the State provided one affidavit sworn under Penalty of Perjury that proved the accused joined the SimDemocracy Discord server with a name that contained the personal data of a member of SimDemocracy, thereby doxxing a member of SimDemocracy.

Considerations

[3] Doxxing another person violates the Terms of Service of Discord as described in the Community Guidelines No. 3, (see also Reference re Length of Summary Bans [2020] SDSC 22 [9], Spade Law Firm, ex parte State of SimDemocracy (Appellant) v Freax (Respondent) [2020] SDSC 24 [6], et. al.).

[3.1] Furthermore, this speech is wholly unprotected. To cite myself from SD v Flashing Lights [2025] Crim 105 [12]:

“As held in In re Restraining Order Act [2019] SDSC 1, the freedom of expression is a qualified right, subject to limitation where it infringes on other fundamental rights, in this case, the right to privacy protected under Article 19. Where expression takes the form of malicious publication of personal data—especially that which targets private individuals—it exceeds the protections afforded by our Constitution, which solely protect a citizen’s rights to freely express their political and religious beliefs.” 

[4] The Constitution mandates that this Court may certify and sentence only where the impugned conduct constitutes an “egregious case” of Terms-of-Service violation, in this instance, when the violation is “serious doxxing”. Yet the Constitution offers no positive definition of that adjective. The problem, therefore, is one of constitutional construction: what legal yardstick will reliably distinguish ordinary misconduct from those extreme transgressions for which certification is reserved?

[5] The Court now crystallises a two-limb test by which future tribunals may gauge intensity for doxxing with predictability and transparency. Each limb is cumulative; failure on any limb is fatal to certification.

[5.1] Is the risk of harm serious?

[5.1.1] In this instance, making the residential address of an individual on a public Discord server predictably facilitates stalking, swatting, and offline harassment. The high probability of misuse, along with the grave potential consequences thus meets the threshold for it to be serious.

[5.2] Is the harm irremediable?

[5.2.1] In this instance, location data, once public, is uniquely persistent: caches, mirrors, screen-captures, and bots propagate it beyond recall. Even immediate deletion cannot restore the victim’s pre-doxxing security. Lesser sanctions are therefore incapable of curing the harm, and therefore, it is irremediable.

[6] In accordance with [5] of this judgement, it follows that the Court must hold and it now does hold that the Terms-of-Service violation perpetrated by the user with User ID 1377267195838599260 was egregious.

Verdict

[7] The user with User ID 1377267195838599260 is sentenced to a permanent ban (in line with ppatpat, ex parte State of SimDemocracy (Appellant) v keepbloxburgsafe [2025] SDSC 21 [5] and Reference re Length of Summary Bans [2020] SDSC 22 [48]) to a permanent ban from SimDemocracy and all its venues. The ban already executed is thereby certified. It is so ordered.