Frozen snapshot of the SimDemocracy Archives, captured 2026-05-05. Read-only mirror; no edit, no live updates. mypenjustbroke.com

SD v bedshaped. 2025 Crim 89

From SimDemocracy Archives
Jump to navigation Jump to search

SD v bedshaped. [2025] Crim 89

Date of judgment 13th July 2025
Judge Judge Terak
Charges 1 charge of ToS Violation
Verdict Guilty
Sentence 4 month ban, with an additional 9 month suspended ban
Applicable persuasive precedent

JUDGMENT by Judge Terak

Introduction

[1] The State through the Department of Justice through State Attorney myttyr_31808 charged bedshaped., represented by Attorney literallyliteral with 1 Court of Terms of Service Violation under Art. 64 of the Criminal Code 2020 for sending messages in violation against the Terms of Service and Community Guidelines into a publicly accessible channel in the SimDemocracy Discord Server.

[2] The State sought a permanent ban from all SimDemocracy platforms including the Discord and Subreddit.

[3] The Defence pleaded Not Guilty. The defendant was detained for the duration of trial.

Trial Motions

[4] The Trial was marked by various motions, some of which shall be reflected here for they shaped the court's judgement by striking or upholding evidence that was considered.

[5] An objection was raised against the relevance of a statement by the defendant by their counsel, claiming the statement not infringing on the community guidelines rules regarding harassment. Those rules textually leave them open for non-enumbered variants; thus, a wide variety of behaviours can be deemed harassment under the ToS. Careful consideration in each case is needed to determine if a conduct falls under this wide clause. The objection was denied because the evidence might still prove a violation under the ToS.

[6] An objection was raised against the completeness of evidence based on missing context. The evidence act establishes that missing context can be provided through a sworn affidavit under the penalty of perjury. Such was provided and the context thus established. The objection was denied.

[7] An objection was raised regarding completeness and relevance. It was denied for the same reasons concerning completeness (see [6]) and for relevance because the conduct was covered under a different section of the Community Guidelines than cited by the defence in their objection and thus might still be relevant for considerations to the possible violation of the Terms of Service.

[8] An objection was raised against admitting a message into evidence including an image and user pings. The objection was raised for incompleteness. As this ping relates to the provided affidavits, context of the image and the ping could be established, as it relates to other users pinged no such context could be established by the state. The objection was partially granted. As it relates to the users who provided context through a sworn affidavit the evidence is admissible, in relation to other users pinged it may not be considered.

[9] An Objection was against using a ticket in a trial. The Court holds that a ticket may only be used as evidence of a sanctions levied against a user and not as proof of the action that led to the ticket itself unless the crime charged specifies violations of a ticket or instructions connected to the ticket if allowed by law to attach such instructions. Further a ticket issued for a separate charge or crime cannot be used to prove a different crime or charge unless the charge sought is consuming the charge of the ticket or the prosecution can prove the two charges are intrinsically linked. The objection against use of a ticket as evidence was granted.

Considerations

[10] The Community Guidelines are part of the Terms of Service of Discord. Every Violation of the Community Guidelines thus violates the Terms of Service and fulfills the crime of Terms of Service Violations. Therein the Court adheres to Spade Law Firm, ex parte State of SimDemocracy v Freax [2020] SDSC 24 [6].

[11] The messages were sent by bedshaped. on the SimDemocracy Discord Server. All messages in the Discord Server must obey the Discord ToS which are higher law in SimDemocracy (In re Restraining Order Act [2019] SDSC 1 [16]) and violations are further punished by the Criminal Code 2020 under Art. 64.

[12] The State claimed that bedshaped.’s messages violated the Terms of Service and its parts (including the Community Guidelines), stating that the defendant called upon multiple members of the community to perform action that would result either in significant self-harm or even death. Further the prosecution claims that the defendant reaffirmed the intent behind this message through later messages. The State reaffirmed its opinion that the message thus violated the community guideline by promoting self-harm.

[13] The Defence urged the Court not to follow the state as a broad reading of the ToS might see other users indicted as well. Regarding the message promotion suicide the defence states that other interpretations are possible and reasonable doubt remains. Regarding the statement in relation to calling other users "subhuman", the defence cites Black's Law Dictionary for its definition on harassment. The definition of which has been previously mirrored by the Courts of SimDemocracy in NovaSM v Dick_head68 [2019] Civ 1 [2] et. al.. Further the defence put forward that the messages by bedshaped. fall under Free speech and are thus protected through Art. 18 §§ 3, 3.1 of the Constitution. Lastly the defence points out that confusion of the mypen (who issued a sworn affidavit for this case) about being part of the message calling for suicide, proves there was no intention to convey the message expressed in the image or at least such could not be proven and that the message was covered under free speech and thus could not lead to a conviction.

[14] The Court does not consider the potential effects to unrelated third parties in criminal cases as a factor to influence the verdict.

[15] Following the doctrine established under Art. 18 §1 of the Constitution and combined with In re Restraining Order Act [2019] SDSC 1 [16] that the Legislature may establish restrictions to the Freedom of Speech to protect the security of SimDemocracy as a whole. Further the state can pass laws violating constitutional rights to ensure the safety of the state as a whole and to align with the ToS. Laws that ensure compliance with the ToS ensure the continued existence of the SimDemocracy Discord and thus one of the primary platforms of the state and the primary hub for the community.

[16] The Community Guidelines contain multiple mandated behaviours a violation of each of which would constitute a ToS violation.

[17] Under No. 1 “Discord may not be used to promote, coordinate, or engage in harassment”. Discord themselves provides the following explanation of what is covered under the Policy: “At Discord, we take a firm stance against harassment and bullying. Bullying and harassment is defined as intentional actions that are meant to cause distress or intimidate individuals. This type of behaviour can have serious consequences and cause lasting harm to the victims, as well as those who witness it. We are committed to fostering a positive and inclusive environment on Discord, and we expect all users to treat each other with respect.

  • Sending unwelcome or unwanted sexual content to an individual
  • Disclosing an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity without consent
  • Calling for the suicide or self-harm of others
  • Coordinating off-platform harassment
  • Organizing or participating in server raids
  • Statements of disrespect that attempt to humiliate an individual
  • Posting content with the intent to cause disgust, anger, or fear, including content that mocks the death of an individual”
[17.1] The image posted by bedshaped. showed Adolf Hitler, one of the most horrible humans to ever have been alive, mass murdered and war mongerer, leader of the Nazi Party in Germany, killing himself with the caption “Follow your Leader”, although there might be different theoretical views to interpret this case any reasonable person would arrive at the conclusion that the message would be a form to kill themselves. The reasonable person is determined as a fictional approximation of the average SimDemocracy user as affirmed under ppatpat and brandmal, ex parte thesigmasquad v State of SimDemocracy [2025] SDSC 13 [18] et. al.. The average SimDemocracy User is online and has at least a cursory interest in politics and history. The events surrounding WW2 and its end, including the suicide of Adolf Hitler are part of wide popcultural knowledge and shared historical memory of modern human culture, often reflected upon and disseminated through various forms of media. The average SimDemocracy User has encountered this information in their lifetime, be it through school or some other form of media. The average SimDemocracy User therefore could understand the reference in the image, the reasonable person test is fulfilled. The image was attached to pinged users, including mypenjustbroke and Lyoko. The combination of the image and the users name might leave hypothetical interpretations but Occams Razor needs to be applied (SD v Panzzrr [2025] Crim 54 [8]). This leaves only one viable interpretation under consideration of all facts. The message meant to convey that the users involved were Nazis and should kill themselves in mirroring the suicide of Hitler.
[17.2] The Community Guidelines need to be considered with the Information Discord provided. Here Discord explicitly listed “Calling for the suicide [..] of others” as fulfilling the Definition of a violation under No. 1 CG. Applying this to the case at hand, the defendant has violated the CG in this point.

[18] The message with the Image could be understood as a suggestive thread. As per No. 2 CG. It only contains a call for suicide though and no threat to perform actions on its own. Thus it poses no threat, the other pieces of evidence provided similarly do not contain such threats.

[19] The message calling another person a “subhuman” could violate No. 4 of the CG by using a known nazi propaganda term used to propagate race theory in Nazi Germany and justify the Holocaust and used to justify Genocide Action in the SS. Discord explains what they understand as Hateful Symbols for the purposes of No. 4 as “Hate Symbols include […] miscellaneous symbols, used to promote […] hatred […] against other people on the basis of protected characteristics. “subhuman” is a nazi propaganda term used to promote hatred against a wide array of groups, including protected characteristics like religion and ethnicity. In the case of the message sent by bedshaped., the defendant used a known nazi term and used it in the intention to hurt a person, but they did so in reference to the membership of a frat. Frat membership is not a protected characteristic recognised before the law.

[20] It's questionable whether the defendant's conduct constitutes extremism under No. 5. Discord defines Violent Extremism Organisation as 

“The term violent extremist organization describes groups that promote a political, ideological, or religious agenda and tolerate, advocate for, or use violence to achieve their goals. This policy covers a wide range of actors, such as terrorist groups, violent extremist organizations, and violent hate groups. We also include informal groups or networks, as well as paramilitary and non-state armed groups, that are organized around extremist beliefs under this policy. Even if not associated with a violent extremist group, users may not share or promote content associated with these groups or content that advocates for violent extremist beliefs on Discord.“

The Court can not find proof of the defendant associating with any known extremist organisation or any other organisation fitting the definition used in the Community Guidelines.

[21] Under Art. 64 §1 of the Criminal Code 2020 the state needs to be expected to enforce the relevant section of the terms of service to fulfil the statutory requirements of a criminal violation of Art. 64. In the Community Server Guidelines, a need for servers to have rules and enforce them through a moderator team are spelled out. Also a Server is mandated to foster a healthy and positive community. Furthermore, servers that facilitate ToS Violations are subject to enforcement by Discord. Being a server in which people send each other calls to kill themselves is evidently not a positive and healthy community. The Court further affirms SD v watson [2025] Crim 68 [3], [4] that the state needs to enforce the ToS. The state is also able to enforce the ToS in this case by removing the offending message and preventing a repeat.

Verdict

[22] The Defendant called upon members of the server to kill themselves, therein violating the Terms of Service. The state is able and expected to enforce the ToS in this matter and thus bedshaped. is guilty of a violation of Art. 64 of the Criminal Code 2020.

Sentence

[23] Following the Verdict the Court entered mitigation, in which both parties had the chance to put forward statements, evidence and call witnesses.

[24] A call for another person to end their own life expresses the deepest possible disregard for human life that can be expressed through the mediums available to us in a simulated state. The Terms of Service classify this kind of behaviour as a terms of service violation. The fitting punishment thus would be a permanent ban from SimDemocracy and all its venues. The Criminal Code in connection with the sentencing act enables the court to take a careful look at the conduct, state of mind and other aggravating and mitigating factors to arrive at a fitting punishment. Those have to be factored into the sentence instead of simply applying a permanent ban.

[25] The Prosecution points out the targeted and planned conduct by bedshaped. In the execution of the original crime and how she continuously escalated the situation instead of reacting to efforts to deescalate. Lastly the Prosecution points out how bedshaped expressed no remorse for the message(s) at the time of the crime.

[26] The Defence produced various screenshots and witness testimony to point out how bedshaped. had since realised the wrong in her actions at the time and come to regret them, and, through witness testimony, sought to establish the character of bedshaped. In connection to the wider SimDemocracy community and its members.

[27] Bedshaped. herself was given the chance to explain herself, offering up an apology and a convincing background for her actions. Not excusing them but taking responsibility, asking the court for clemency to allow for a continued track to betterment.

[28] The defense counsel and bedshaped. Portrayed convincing remorse since the original message was sent. The Court can not verify if the proclaimed outreach and apology actions did indeed occur as no evidence to this end was provided to the court.

Sentencing factors

[29] In the defences favour are to be considered the voluntary apology of the defendant and the past behaviour of bedshaped. in service to the community according to Art. 3 §1 No. b,c Sentencing Act. Against the defence as aggravating factors the planning and intent that went into sending the message, as well as the disregard to the harmful consequences of the conduct according to Art. 4 §1 No. b, f Sentencing Act.

[30] Striving to account for the various pieces of evidence provided in both the Trial and the mitigation as well as the testimony provided by both witnesses and the accused herself, the court applies the following principles for the verdict in accordance with Art. 2 §1 No. a, b, d, e, h, i Sentencing Act. ToS violations regularly pose risks to other users with real life consequences as well as the community and the state as a whole, thus a sentence needs to be able to deter replication or imitation. Given the proximity to the protections for free speech, the courts needs to consider various other factors as well though, including the intend and the consequences of an action.

[31] The message asking users to kill themselves is to be seen as highly severe as it risked resulting in real life harm while being able to manifest uncontrollable consequences. The social harm of this event can not fully be determined as not all users affected were part of this trial, through the sworn affidavits provided though, it can be ascertained that the message was disturbing and aggravating at least to some of the affected users. It seems like the motivations and the intent of bedshaped. were clouded while posting the messages, which can not be an excuse for violating the ToS in this way, but can offer context to the actions. As it relates to the need to protect the community in the future from bedshaped. This court believes her statements about having professional help and being able to avoid future such occurrences from repeating. Finally the need for deterrence. ToS violations are grave in possible consequences, any sentence thus has to reflect the need to specific crime committed. As telling people to kill themselves is an especially grave act, the need for deterrence is high.

[32] There exist similarities to SD v wall.b [2025] Crim 46 as in both cases a person was asked to kill themselves. This sentence has to reflect the Nazi imagery and the fact a multitude of people was called out to end their own lives.

[33] bedshaped. is sentenced to serve a ban of 4 months, followed by a 9 month suspended ban, to be enforced upon announcement of this sentence.

Post Verdict Instructions

[34] The parties have the right to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court where and to which extent the law allows for such an appeal.

Citations

<references />