SD v Peppa 2025 Crim 86
SD v Peppa [2025] Crim 86
| Date of judgment | 13th July 2025 |
| Judge | Judge Benbookworm |
| Charges |
|
| Verdict |
|
| Sentence | N/A |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Judge Benbookworm
Introduction
[1] The accused is charged with an array of alleged crimes, mainly harassing and being an alternate account of a terrorist. Overall, the State seeks a permanent ban.
Summary of the Prosecution on (Sexual) Harassment
[2] Regarding sexual harassment, the prosecution lays out evidence from the holding cell of the accused saying another user has large breasts: “It doesn’t concern you big titty sakitty.” As well, their nickname was changed to repeat the same core message. The prosecution alleges this is sexually explicit, lacks consent, and solicits sexually explicit activities.
[3] In alleging first degree harassment, the prosecution presents more conversation from the holding cell. The accused said they would urinate on the face of a user. In response to a message about licking people, that user said, “we prefer civiliced (sic) people”, to which the accused responded in italics “Licks aggressively”. The prosecution cites Mobilfan v Dick_head68 [2020] Civ 3 in saying that requests to cease harassment can be implicit.
Summary of the Defense on (Sexual) Harassment
[4] The defense broadly paints a brush of jest, saying that the accused is a troll, pointing to cases like SD v Mr_Cynical [2019] Crim 6 that jest can be at least a partial defense. They argue that trolls have come in the forms of Senators, lawyers, and lurkers.
[5] Arguing that the content of the messages is not sexual, the accused draws upon some analogies. The defense argues that porcine animals (such as the eponymous Peppa the Pig) view licking is a form of grooming, not sexual in nature. The defense cites an unspecific United States v. Robert Kelly for the prospect that urinating on someone is not inherently sexual.
- [5.1] Due to various scheduling quirks and finishing during pre-trial, the later initiated SD v Fake Peppa [2025] Crim 96 dismissed similar language regarding urinating on someone’s face as insufficient for probable cause of a Terms of Service violation.
- [5.2] This court echoes SD v changebac [2025] Crim 24 [5] in calling these defenses dubious.
- [5.3] Regardless, the prosecution responds that this interaction is the basis of the first degree harassment, not the basis of the charge for sexual harassment.
Summary of the Arguments on Terrorism and Alternate Accounts
[6] To demonstrate a terrorist conspiracy the prosecution points to a message in the holding cell saying “bro missed 3 generations of tide peppa”, and later saying the “defendant is a known terrorist” and that such cannot be taken in jest. The defense flatly rejected this as a presupposition.
[7] The terrorist conspiracy is also related to the charge of unlawful use of alternate accounts. The prosecution presents direct messages between Opersup and the accused, where Opersup asked, "Just to make sure you are Endrose and not BBQ" to which the accused replied “Yes” then “It’s Endrose”. This was for Opersup to have the information he privately needed to convince the OHS Director to let the accused past the border.
- [7.1] The prosecution lays out several scenarios, wondering how the accused could possibly have known who Endrose is.
- [7.2] The defense points to how everyone knows who Endrose is. In fact, even Opersup mentioned Endrose himself in the message immediately prior within the same screenshot. The defense points out that any other answer would have meant that Opersup would not have helped the accused to enter SimDemocracy.
Considerations on Sexual Harassment
[8] In considering sexual harassment, the prosecution relies on the second definition: “Acts in such a manner as to solicit or be interpreted by a reasonable person to be soliciting sexually explicit activities from another person without consent.”
[9] Turning to precedent, SD v Extraditz [2025] Crim 40 [12] defined such as "Content that the reasonable person would recognize as directly and unambiguously sexual".
[10] Does talking about someone’s large breasts meet that definition? The dissent in ppatpat and brandmal, ex parte thesigmasquad (Appellant) v State of SimDemocracy (Respondent) [2025] SDSC 13 [42.1] discusses a point not mentioned by the majority, and which this court finds persuasive. The dissenting Justice notes that several regularly and publicly discuss breasts without public outcry. This is indicative that breasts are not unambiguously sexual, but it is possible. Further context will be evaluated.
[11] In Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (online version) “solicit” is defined as:
- 1. To seek or to plead, to entreat and ask.
- 2. To lure or tempt a person.
[12] The prosecution did not elaborate on the alleged conduct constituting solicitation. Similar to SD v Satitty [2025] Crim 91 [11-16], the prosecution here failed to carry its burden of proof that this constituted unsolicited solicitation.
[13] The court therefore agrees with the defense’s opening statement that such is a nuisance, and not sexual harassment. The court finds the accused not guilty of sexual harassment.
Considerations on Harassment
[14] The current law defines harassment as causing “undue or unjustifiable apprehension”, and that a degree of mens rea is required and rebuttably presumed for first-degree harassment.
[15] In turning to case law, the court finds:
- [15.1] SD v Mooklyn (Remanded) [2023] Crim 1 [15], where wanting to end somebody qualified as apprehension. Likewise, SD v warlock23 [2025] Crim 18 [9] threatening a user's life causes apprehension. This is not present here.
- [15.2] Multiple and/or targeted uses of slurs were found to cause apprehension in SD v Shun [2025] Crim 3, SD v dominax273 [2025] Crim 7, and SD v Kadyisme [2025] Crim 9. Neither of which is present here.
- [15.3] SD v Panzzrr [2025] Crim 54 [10-12] the court cites multiple definitions of the word apprehension, and determines that where someone's race being unfortunate did not cause apprehension.
[16] As the alleged victim themself said, what the accused did is not acceptable in civilized society. But the prosecution has failed to demonstrate how this behavior caused apprehension. The defendant is not guilty of harassment (in either the first or second degree).
Considerations on Terrorism
[17] The relevant portion of current law on terrorist conspiracy is that the State must show on the balance of probabilities that the user is a member and supporter of a terrorist organization. The court will assume without endorsing that TIDE is a terrorist organization.
[18] The prosecution asserts without support that “bro missed 3 generations of tide peppa” shows the accused is more likely than not to be a member. The defense argues that many other citizens will joke about being members of TIDE, and even set their nickname as such.
[19] This court determined there was probable cause to support the allegation of terrorist conspiracy. This message is sufficient to be the basis for initiating an investigation, but should have been developed further before bringing such to trial.
[20] This is not the first criminal complaint brought for terrorist conspiracy, but it is certainly the weakest one to have been added to the Case Law Index.
- [20.1] SD v TIDE [2025] Crim 70 found that (among other things) continuing to identify with a group could constitute tacit assistance.
- [20.2] SD v Pretzel [2025] Crim 80 found that use of the motto “Semper Invictus” was sufficient to establish membership in TIDE.
- [20.3] SD v Juliana [2025] Crim 87 asserts that there is no mens rea requirement for terrorist conspiracy. The defendant repeatedly sent messages with the TIDE motto and expressed their support.
- [20.4] Saying someone has been oblivious to previous iterations of TIDE is not comparable to any of the above.
[21] The one line of evidence presented cannot alone be sufficient to meet even the constitutionally dubious bar of “balance of probabilities”. The accused is not guilty of terrorist conspiracy.
Considerations on Unlawful Use of Alternate Accounts
[22] Unlike in SD v Dick_head68 [2020] Crim 15 where the court determined that impersonating dick_head would have no benefit, the benefit here is manifest.
[23] Based solely on the evidence presented, the direct message the accused received from Opersup said they would only be let into SimDemocracy if they said they were Endrose. The accused didn’t conjure this name out of nowhere, unlike the prosecution’s assertions.
- [23.1] The prosecution failed to consider charging this as a hoax, and therefore this court fails to consider it either.
[24] It may be that the accused is an alt account of a malicious user. There is probable cause here. This is a great starting point for an investigation, too bad it never happened.
[25] The State failed to prove this, and now shall not have another chance, as double jeopardy is attached. The accused is not guilty of unlawful use of alternate accounts.
Citations
<references />