SD v Nobi5 2025 Crim 148
SD v Nobi5 [2025] Crim 148
| Date of judgment | 19th December 2025 |
| Judge | Judge Thyme |
| Charges |
One (1) count of Prohibition of Association with a Proscribed Organization |
| Verdict |
Not Guilty - Prohibition of Association with a Proscribed Organization |
| Sentence | A ban of 1 year |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Judge Thyme
Summary of Facts
[1] The defendant posted, “Y’all know we gonna have a field day when the state of emergency ends 😼” in the general announcements channel on October 23rd, 2025.
[2] The defendant posted a forum post in the news channel titled “DONALD TRUMP IS A ^GREAT^ PRESIDENT”. The defendant then, within the post, presents statements about immigration, the LGBT+ community, and various ethnicities. This post was made on October 25th, 2025.
[3] The defendant followed the news post with a message pinging the Senator role, the Judge role, and the Court Ping role.
Summary of Arguments
On Hate Speech
[4] The prosecution argues that the defendant committed hate speech by using harmful stereotypes to demean protected groups (immigrants in general, as well as Mexicans, Arabs, and LGBT+ people), satisfying both the “demeaning” and intent or reckless disregard elements of the charge. They contend the speech is not protected political expression, and that hate speech does not convey legitimate political belief and that the Discord ToS supersedes constitutional free-speech claims. The deliberate pinging of large roles is presented as evidence of intent or, at minimum, reckless amplification.
[5] The defense argues the statements are protected political and religious speech reflecting widely held MAGA views and support for Donald Trump, not hate speech. They claim there was no malicious intent, that the defendant did not use slurs, that no statutory elements had been satisfied, and that no evidence of harm or distress was presented. Because the defendant was not charged with a ToS violation, they argue constitutional free expression applies.
On Prohibition of Association with a Proscribed Organization
[6] The prosecution argues the defendant admitted association with a proscribed organization by stating “we gonna have a field day when the state of emergency ends,” where “we” necessarily refers to TIDE, the only group meaningfully restricted by the state of emergency. They contend that “field day” implies renewed ability to attack SimDemocracy once border protections are lifted. Because the defendant explicitly included themselves in that group by using “we,” this constitutes association with a proscribed organization rather than circumstantial inference.
[7] The defense argues the prosecution relies entirely on a single, ambiguous message and offers only circumstantial evidence to allege association with TIDE. They contend the state of emergency affects everyone, not just proscribed organizations, and that “we” could refer to friends or others impacted, not a banned group. Because no concrete evidence shows contact, membership, or support for a proscribed organization, the defense maintains the charge is unproven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Considerations
On Hate Speech
[8] On the charge of Hate Speech, the Criminal Code 2020 requires that the defendant’s speech was upsetting, demeaning, or humiliating toward a protected characteristic and that it was made with the intent to demean or with reckless disregard as to its impact. The prosecution presented statements targeting protected groups (immigrants, specific ethnicities, LGBTQ people) using harmful stereotypes that would be upsetting to reasonable members of those offgroups, satisfying the first element.
[9] The defendant’s deliberate composition of the message and the intentional amplification of it by pinging largely subscribed to roles supports a finding of intent, or alternatively reckless disregard, as the defendant knowingly exposed the statement to a broad audience.
[10] The defense’s assertion that the speech was political or religious in nature does not negate the statutory elements when the content goes beyond expression of belief into degrading characterizations that the law excludes from protected expression. In addition, the Court acknowledges and reaffirms In re Restraining Order Act [2019] SDSC 1, noting that harassment, and by extension hate speech, do not legitimately convey these beliefs and are not protected under freedom of expression. Accordingly, the Court finds that both required elements for hate speech are satisfied on these facts.
On Prohibition of Association with a Proscribed Organization
[11] On the charge of Prohibition of Association with a Proscribed Organization, the statute makes it an offense to associate with a proscribed organization or its members. The prosecution’s case rested on interpreting the defendant’s use of “we” in a single message about a “field day” once the state of emergency ended as an admission of association with a proscribed organization.
[12] The Court notes that a single, ambiguous message without further indicia of connection (such as membership, contact, or expressed support) is circumstantial and does not, on its own, demonstrate a meaningful association with the proscribed group under the statutory definition.
[13] The record contains no direct evidence of membership, communication, or other interaction between the defendant and any proscribed organization’s members sufficient to meet the burden of proof. For these reasons, the Court finds the prosecution has not satisfied its burden to prove association with a proscribed organization beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sentencing
On Hate Speech
[14] The prosecution argued that pinging such a largely populated role, the Court Ping role with more than 200 subscribers, that the defendant did so with the intention of getting as many people as possible to look at their post.
[15] The prosecution also argues that, since the crime occurred only five (5) days after the defendant joined SimDemocracy, that they had joined with intent to commit the crime of hate speech. The prosecution refers to the defendant only having sent two messages prior to making the news post as evidence of pre-planning the violation.
[16] The defense, on mitigating factors, argues that the defendant has no criminal record, and no prior convictions at all, including any to do with hate speech.
[17] The Court finds the prosecution’s argument of planning/premeditation as an aggravating factor to not be persuasive, but does find the argument of the defendant attempting to spread harm as far as possible through the use of available pings to be persuasive and the Court does accept such an argument as a valid aggravating factor.
[18] The Court finds the defense’s argument on the lack of a criminal record to not be persuasive and finds such to not be a mitigating factor.
[19] The Court acknowledges the severity of the offense, noting that pinging over 200 individuals to notify them of hate speech is quite severe. The Court also acknowledges the intent of the defendant given, again, the pings and the verbiage used within the message. As such, the Court denounces the defendant’s conduct and sentences the defendant to a ban of 1 year.
Verdict
[20] The defendant is found not guilty on the charge of prohibition of association with a proscribed organization and is found guilty on the charge of hate speech.
[21] The defendant is sentenced to a ban of 1 year for hate speech.
Citations
<references />