SD v christopher bizarre 2026 Crim 4
SD v christopher_bizarre [2026] Crim 4
| Date of judgment | 28th February 2026 |
| Judge | Judge Muggy |
| Charges |
|
| Verdict |
|
| Sentence |
|
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Judge Muggy
Introduction
[1] The State of SimDemocracy, as represented by the Attorney General’s office, is charging the defendant, christopher_bizzare (1322113924811980842) one (1) charge of Misgendering under Article 56b of the Criminal Code 2020, two (2) charges of Hate Speech under Article 56a of the Criminal Code 2020, and one (1) charge of Spamming under Article 50 of the Criminal Code 2020.
- [1.1] The events that the State brings as grounds for the charges transpired in or about the 11th of January, 2026, in various channels of the SimDemocracy Discord Server and through Direct Messages on Discord.
[2] In the criminal complaint and pre-trial, the prosecution requested a six (6) month ban for the Misgendering charge, a three (3) month ban for the first Hate Speech charge, a permanent ban for the second Hate Speech charge, and a permanent ban for the Spamming charge.
[3] This case was initially prosecuted by an intern at the Department of Justice, and had to change hands due to varying circumstances, and the defendant was represented by the Office of Public Defenders, with two defenders having worked on the case.
On Pre-Trial Motions and Arguments
[4] Over the course of the pre-trial, this Court had to rule on certain arguments that I would consider erroneous, so in this section, I’ll elaborate on certain determinations just to make it even clearer for future attorneys.
[5] When deciding whether to admit evidence early, it is necessary for a judge to consider whether it is appropriate and necessary. In this Court’s opinion, it isn’t necessary to force the admission of evidence early pursuant to Article 7 §3.7 of the CPA due to one party using evidence which they intend to admit for trial to prove the defendant’s likelihood to reoffend. This is because of the fact that in many instances, evidence proving whether a defendant is likely or unlikely to reoffend coincides with evidence used to prove the defendant’s guilt, so if a Court were to force the admission of evidence early, what, then, would be the purpose of Article 7 §3.1 of the CPA?
- [5.1] Further, as bound by Appeal of In re Dragoncrxst New Evidence SDCR 22 [2025] SDSC 42, evidence, being “presented” to argue the defendant’s likelihood to reoffend, is subject to the evidentiary standards of Article 13 of the CPA and Evidence Act 2025, and is not held to a lesser bar just because it isn’t part of the procedure in Article 7 §3.7 or Article 8 §1.3 of the CPA.
[6] Turning to the formal determination on whether a defendant is likely to reoffend, when deciding on such, a Court must think of it in the abstract. Being, if the defendant were to have the opportunity to interact with SimDemocracy and its community, whether or not they commit the same or related criminal offenses.
- [6.1] As there is a large discretionary factor in making such a determination, this Court accepted the argument of the defendant themself recounting their reasoning for joining SimDemocracy and committing such crimes, being a case of “owning the libs”.
[7] Having considered the circumstances of the situation, this Court determined that the defendant was likely to reoffend and thus ordered their detainment for the duration of trial.
On the Misgendering Charge
[8] With the charge of Misgendering, the prosecution sought to prove the guilt of the defendant on the fact that he asked a citizen of SimDemocracy (Whitethommy) about his gender identity, being whether he was “born male or transitioned”. After Thommy responded with “transitioned”, the defendant proceeded to use the term “ma’am”, a term commonly used when referring to women, when addressing Thommy.
[9] In the section of Article 56b of the Criminal Code the prosecution is pursuing, Misgendering is defined as “[r]efer[ing] to or label[ing] another person with a gender that does not match their gender identity with the intention to deny, invalidate, or mock that person’s gender identity”.
[10] There are two elements in which the state must prove as to say that a defendant is guilty under this section of the Criminal Code, being (1) that the defendant referred to or labeled someone else with a gender they don’t identify with and (2) that they did so with the intent to invalidate that individual’s gender identity.
[11] For the first element, referring to or labeling someone with a gender they don’t identify with can be done through explicitly stating that they are another gender, or can be done through using terms and honorifics used to refer to the gender that the affected individual does not identify with.
- [11.1] In this case, the defendant very clearly and expressly used the term “ma’am” when the gender identity of the person who they were referring to is that of being a man. This clearly displays the defendant labeling the victim with a gender they do not identify with through using a term referring to a different gender.
[12] The second element, however, is trickier to prove, being that it requires proving that the defendant had the intent to invalidate or mock a victim’s gender identity behind their mischaracterization of that victim’s gender.
- [12.1] To prove this element, the prosecution presented evidence that clearly showed the defendant replying to Thommy saying he was a trans male with the statement “Ok ma’am” and after being corrected, again stated “Ma’am”. In the eyes of this Court, this clearly displays that the defendant had the intent to invalidate the victim’s gender identity, as even after being correct, the defendant continued in his behavior.
On the First Hate Speech Charge
[13] With the first charge of Hate Speech, the prosecution sought to prove under Article 56a that the defendant “submit[ted], post[ed], or relay[ed] speech that is upsetting, demeaning, or humiliating about a person’s or a group of people’s protected characteristics and [h]ad the intention to upset, demean, or humiliate, or acted carelessly or recklessly as to [do so]”. Also under Article 56a, the prosecution pointed to §2.1, which states that a person automatically fulfills §1.1 if they use a slur.
[14] In proving the defendant’s guilt, the prosecution points to direct messages between a citizen of SimDemocracy (NotCommunist366) and the defendant, where the defendant stated that NotCommunist not “use [a] [r-slur]ed attitude” in reference to how the defendant saw their actions as them “only using correct pronouns”.
[15] Like Misgendering, Hate Speech has two elements that must be proven to determine a defendant’s guilt under Article 56a of the Criminal Code. Being that (1) the defendant conveyed speech that is upsetting, demeaning, or humiliating about a protected characteristic and (2) that the defendant had the intent to upset, demean or humiliate or otherwise acted carelessly or recklessly with their actions as to cause those consequences.
[16] As §2.1 explicitly states that one element of Hate Speech is fulfilled upon the use of a slur by a defendant, this Court sees no need to elaborate further on that determination.
[17] In proving the second element, the prosecution pointed to the actual use of the slur that the defendant had said, being a derogatory term for neurodivergent individuals. With the defendant using the term as a negative adjective for NotCommunist’s demeanor, determined by observing how the defendant framed it in a negative context (see the defendant stating “[p]urging words in my mouth”), it is clear that the defendant had the intention to demean along a protected characteristic.
On the Second Hate Speech Charge
[18] While the prosecution sought to prove the same elements outlined by this Court in [15] through the second Hate Speech charge, this charge proves to be a tad bit less clear-cut than the previous two charges discussed. To prove that the defendant had “submit[ted], post[ed], or relay[ed] speech that is upsetting, demeaning, or humiliating about […] protected characteristics,” the prosecution points to messages sent by the defendant in the #holding-cell channel, where they ask a citizen of SimDemocracy (copybare. or Mushroom) whether they are straight and cisgender, elaborating on their question by stating “aka normal”. After Mushroom responds in the affirmative, the defendant goes on to say that “[they] found someone normal here [and] not mutilated or mentally ill”.
[19] The prosecution affirms that the defendant’s statements are clearly meant to discriminate and demean protected characteristics, being specifically sexual orientation and gender identity, as they had stated that a heterosexual and cisgender individual is “not mutilated or mentally ill”, which is a statement implying that those who don’t identify with those characteristics are in fact “mutilated or mentally ill”.
[20] Unlike the previous two charges, the defense offered a response, stating that the defendant had only called Mushroom “not mutilated or mentally ill”, and that in saying such, the defendant isn’t calling anyone else mutilated or mentally ill.
[21] These arguments then pose to the Court a question as to whether the statements the defendant made had enough surrounding context to indicate that they were in fact indirectly calling non-heterosexual and non-cisgender identifying individuals “mutilated or mentally ill”, thus conveying speech that demeans the protected characteristics of gender identity and sexual orientation.
[22] To make this determination, the Court looks to the defendant’s course of action that led to them stating that Mushroom isn’t “mutilated or mentally ill”. That being starting with the question of whether Mushroom was heterosexual and cisgender. The defendant immediately introduces a statement that excludes anyone outside of those groups by stating that they are “normal”. Proceeding Mushroom’s response in the affirmative, the defendant then makes their statements saying that Mushroom isn’t “mutilated or mentally ill”. With this, this Court can conclude that because the defendant is directly responding to Mushroom saying that he is cisgender and heterosexual with saying that he isn’t “mutilated or mentally ill”, that it’s a statement meant to say that anyone outside of those areas are “mutilated or mentally ill”, as evidenced by the defendant’s belief that they aren’t “normal”.
[23] Moving on to whether the defendant had the intent to upset, demean, or humiliate, or acted in a reckless or careless manner where those effects would occur, it is clear the defendant had the intent to demean those who don’t identify as cisgender and heterosexual, as they did it in the first two charges, and even after being arrested, had continued their behavior.
On the Spamming Charge
[24] The last charge the prosecution sought to prove the defendant’s guilt on was Spamming pursuant to Article 50 of the Criminal Code. In order to prove the defense’s guilt, the prosecution pointed to the fact that the defendant sent the same GIF in a continuous stream, disrupting discussion occurring in #general.
[25] While the defense offered minimal defense or none at all to the previous charges, this charge is unique in the fact that the defense centers its argument on the Freedom of Expression and Right to Revolution. These arguments stem from the defendant stating “Fuck the rules” and “Vive la liberté” as well as the GIF that they were continually sending being a depiction of a guilotine, a symbol of one of the most infamous revolutions in history, the French Revolution (the first one, not the one Les Misérables is partially based in).
[26] This Court finds the defense’s arguments erroneous, and as bound by In re Restraining Order Act [2019] SDSC 1, finding the defendant’s statements to be considered unprotected speech, as spamming GIFs and non-constructive comments “don’t legitimately convey any meaningful political or religious belief or opinion,” meaning that yes, a massive wall of GIFs is a purposeful distraction of communication between citizens of SimDemocracy.
On the Right to Revolution
[27] Despite this Court already negating the defense’s argument on the grounds of the Freedom of Expression, there still exists the question of whether the Right to Revolution applies to the defendant’s actions.
[28] The defense justifies the defendant’s disruptive behavior by stating that they were simply “wishing to see tyranny of the SDBI ended after they’d thrown down the constitutional order,” the defense does not elaborate on how the SDBI’s, or any actions of the State in this case, were unconstitutional and thus warranted the Right to Revolution being invoked.
[29] To use the Right to Revolution as a defense, the defense must (1) assert that the State acted in a way that would make the defendant believe that they were trying to abolish the democratic and constitutional order, (2) all other remedies to resolve the issue had been exhausted, and (3) that the defendant’s actions were legitimately only done in the interest of preserving SimDemocracy’s democratic and constitutional principles.
[30] As the defense did not even prove one of these elements, this Court has no choice but to throw out its argument on the defendant invoking their Right to Revolution completely.
Verdict
[31] This Court finds the defendant guilty on all charges.
Sentencing
[32] Given the defense did not present mitigating factors relevant to the sentencing for the Misgendering charge, and the prosecution presented the aggravating factor of the defendant’s lack of remorse, the defendant is sentenced to a six (6) month ban for Misgendering.
[33] The defense also did not present mitigating factors for the first Hate Speech charge’s sentencing, and with the defendant’s lack of remorse, this Court sentences them to a three (3) month ban for the first charge of Hate Speech.
[34] Yada yada the defense didn’t present any mitigating factors and the defendant didn’t show any remorse thus they’re sentenced to a permanent ban for the second charge of Hate Speech
[35] Due to finding the defense’s arguments and mitigating factors on the Spamming charge’s sentencing generally erroneous and due to the defendant’s lack of remorse this Court sentences them to a ban of one (1) month.