SD v Satitty 2025 Crim 91
SD v Satitty [2025] Crim 91
| Date | 7 July 2025 |
| Judge | Judge ppatpat |
| Charges | 1 charge of Terms of Service Violation (Article 64 of the Criminal Code 2020) |
| Verdict | Not guilty of 1 charge of Terms of Service Violation (Article 64 of the Criminal Code 2020) |
| Sentence | |
| Applicable precedent |
|
JUDGEMENT by Judge ppatpat
Introduction
[1] The State of SimDemocracy has charged the defendant, Satitty, with one count of violating Article 64 of the Criminal Code 2020 (Terms of Service Violation).
[2] The State alleges that the defendant, after joining the SimDemocracy Discord server, sent a large number of direct messages to several citizens, purportedly including messages such as “Opersup IS TIDE”, while using the display name “WELCOME BACK BIG TITTY SAKITTY.”
[3] The Defence pleaded not guilty to the charge of Terms of Service Violation under Article 64 of the Criminal Code.
Summary of Argumentation and Facts
[4] The Prosecution’s case is that the defendant sent unsolicited bulk messages to members of the SimDemocracy Discord server, thereby violating point 13 of the Discord Community Guidelines, which prohibits the sending of “unsolicited bulk messages (or spam) to others.”
[5] The State presented two key exhibits:
- [5.1] Exhibit 1: A screenshot evidencing the content of the messages sent.
- [5.2] Exhibit 2: A screenshot from Discord’s Mod View, accompanied by a symbol key, demonstrating that the defendant was flagged for “unusual DM activity.” The Prosecution submitted that this flag only appears when many new DMs are sent to server members who are not on the sender’s friends list within a 24-hour period, and that this behaviour constitutes unsolicited bulk messaging under Discord’s policies.
[6] The Prosecution argued that, according to both the letter of Article 64 §1 and the operation of Discord’s moderation tools, no evidence is required of harm or complaint by recipients, only that the Terms of Service or Community Guidelines have been breached in a manner enforceable by SimDemocracy. They asserted that “unsolicited” simply means “not asked for,” and that, absent evidence of solicitation, the flag in Exhibit 2 constitutes irrefutable proof of a violation.
[7] The Defence contended that the Prosecution’s case relies on assumptions, not direct evidence. It was argued that the “unusual DM activity” flag is only an indicator of high messaging volume to non-friends and does not, of itself, prove that the messages were unsolicited in the legal sense. The Defence pointed out that there is only one confirmed instance of an unsolicited direct message, and that the remainder of the activity cannot be presumed to be unlawful or unwanted without specific evidence. The Defence maintained that the burden rests on the Prosecution to prove the messages were unsolicited beyond reasonable doubt, and that automated detection is not in itself proof of criminal conduct.
[8] In rebuttal, the Prosecution argued that Article 64 creates a regulatory offence requiring only a breach of platform rules; no evidence of harm, recipient complaint, or subjective intention is necessary. The Prosecution submitted that the Discord moderation flag, by design, signals a violation of the relevant guideline, and that the absence of invitations or opt-in from recipients, together with the lack of any applicable exception, is sufficient to prove a breach.
[9] The Defence maintained that Discord’s automated systems are not sufficient to displace the requirement for proof beyond reasonable doubt, especially where the definition of “unsolicited” is contested and there is no recipient testimony or evidence of opt-in.
[10] The prosecution maintains that Discord’s automated flag is itself sufficient evidence, since the system only flags behaviour that violates the ToS. The prosecution argues that there is no subjective test for “solicitation” and that DMs to non-friends, absent proof of invitation, are presumptively unsolicited.
Considerations
[11] The key issue is whether the prosecution has proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that Satitty sent “unsolicited bulk messages” in violation of Discord ToS and Article 64.
[12] Discord’s guideline, as cited in evidence and accepted by both parties, defines “unsolicited” as “not asked for.” However, there is a distinction between a lack of explicit solicitation and positive proof that no solicitation or consent existed. No direct recipient testimony or complaint has been admitted, and the only direct evidence is the Mod View, which is an automated indicator of high volume DM activity, not a definitive finding of law. The court notes that Discord’s moderation tools are not infallible, nor are they designed for evidentiary standards in a court of law..
[13] On balance, the prosecution has proven that a large number of messages were sent to non-friends and that at least one message was unsolicited. The circumstantial evidence strongly supports the inference that the remaining messages were unsolicited as well, but, following Article 2 of the Criminal Code 2020, such inference must still meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
[14] The Mod View flag is, at best, circumstantial evidence of a high volume of direct messages sent in a short time. It does not, without more, prove that the bulk of messages were unsolicited. The Court is not prepared to hold that an automated moderation flag, absent further evidence, proves a criminal breach of Article 64 beyond reasonable doubt.
[15] The prosecution’s argument that the defense must prove solicitation or opt-in is a reversal of the burden of proof. The law is clear that it is the prosecution who must prove “unsolicited” beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of evidence of solicitation is not the same as proof of lack of solicitation.
[16] As only a single confirmed unsolicited message is proven, and the charge concerns “bulk unsolicited messages,” the court finds that the prosecution has not proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the offence charged.
Verdict
[17] The Defendant, Satitty, is found not guilty of the charge of Terms of Service Violation under Article 64.
[18] The Defendant is to be immediately released from any restrictions imposed as a result of these proceedings. It is so ordered.