SD v g470 2025 Crim 113
SD v g470_ [2025] Crim 113
| Date of judgment | 4th August 2025 |
| Judge | Judge Terak |
| Charges |
|
| Verdict | Guilty of Harassment in the 1st Degree |
| Sentence | 12 Month Ban |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
REMANDED JUDGMENT by Chief Judge Terak
Issued 27th November 2025
Note from the Archives: most of the judgment remained the same, apart from references to "distress" now saying "apprehension", and the following change to [17]. The guilt and sentence were not changed. The full text of the remand is not included, as it is largely duplicative, but is linked above for reference.
[17R] A person's reputation in an online community is dominated by two things, the impression they themselves leave upon others through their messages and actions and the impressions others generate for them. While a person can control what they do and say themselves, they can not control what others say. A person's reputation can have a great impact upon their ability to run for office, get hired for jobs or even just if they are able to successfully (read normally in this context) interact with other community members. Rumors existing that a user having done specific things (not escalated to a criminal level) can happen and are normal in any community. The behaviour by g470_ escalated one step further though. Instead of just spreading rumors, facts were proclaimed about the affected user. These facts were able to shape the reputation immensely and disproportionally as they suggested the affected user not only committed crimes under SimDem law but also committed real life crimes of an especially reprehensible kind, sexual assault against minors. Such messages are able to end a persons existence in an online community, thus a worry about the future of the affected was expressed in the accused's messages as seen by their urgent attempts to get the messages removed to prevent harm to their person and their reputation.
ORIGINAL JUDGMENT by Judge Terak
Introduction
[1] The state charges the defendant g470_ (ID: 820642564591714366) with 1 Count of Harassment in the first Degree based on a series of messages sent by the Accused, alleged to Harass another Member of SimDemocracy. The Trial was held as a Summary Trial.
Evidence and Arguments
[2] The state put forth evidence of the defendant posting various messages in the SimDemocracy Discord Server alleging another named user “doxxed minors”, “touched [..] children” and other similar messages which will not be fully replicated here as to not perpetuate their message here. The defendant was alleged to have suggested that another user molested children.
[3] The Prosecution pointed at SD v Dickhead [2019] Crim 8 to provide that the Prosecution does not prove mens rea.
[4] The Court took notice of the Decision in SD v Dickhead [2019] Crim 8 [4-6] and found that the decision is not applicable to the current standard of Harassment. The text of the law quoted by former Chief Justice Danyo has changed since 2019 and the precedent thus is no longer applicable, Where former a actus reus was enough, the law now requires intent and thus mens rea to fulfill the statutory requirements for Harassment.
[5] The Prosecution further explained that the messages by g470_ were malicious and targeted in their nature with disregard to the truth and intentionally public. The defendant did not try to prove the truth of their statements.
[6] The defence responded that the actions of the defendant were protected through Art. 18 §3 Constitution under the protections of Free Speech from criminal prosecution. The defense held that the precedent set in In re Restraining Order Act [2019] SDSC 1 [15], which the Court notes explicitly limits Freedom of Expression in Regards to cases of Doxxing, Harassment or similar actions, because the defendant merely expressed political opinions against the third user since they believed them “to be a member of TIDE”. Further the defence explained that if they think about TIDE things like doxxing or pedophilia come to their own mind, and later called a witness to support this fact.
[7] The Prosecution rebutted this fact by responded to this by pointing to Art. 18 §1 Constitution which states that an infringement upon Freedom of Expression is allowed to protect the rights of other users of SimDemocracy. The Prosecution further expanded that the user in question is a minor and thus under heightened protection under Art. 24 § 2 Constitution.
[8] The Defence called as Witness the President in their role as the former Director of the Office of Homeland Security.
[9] The Defence proceeded to question the Witness about cooperation between TIDE and GC and PuP, whose cooperation the court took notice of in addition to the witnesses testimony given their involvement in past court cases and judicial proceedings and given the hostile relations between all Parties with the Government of SimDemocracy. The Witness testified that the groups, in their own servers, had shared illegal material that would be classified in their opinion as containing CP. Further TIDE is known as doxxing people according to the testimony.
[10] The Witness explained upon question that the affected user was banned for alleged TIDE affiliation, which was a common sentiment within SimDemocracy.
[11] The Witness was subsequently cross examined by the Prosecution. Upon questioning the witness testified that the affected user had in the past admitted to being a member of TIDE but since left the organisation to create their own group. Further the prosecution asked if the witness even had accessed any relevant information about the affected user in their capacity or had taken notice of them or collected information in any other way since they took the position as OHS Director, to which President Zepz testified that no, since the user was already banned at that time they did not do so.
[12] In their closing statement the prosecution reaffirmed their position and recommended a ban of 1 year again. The Defence, in its statement reaffirmed its position and urged the Court to reject the Precedent set forth in SD v Mythrows [2025] Crim 51 [11ff.]. The state waved a rebuttal, therefore the defence did not respond to the rebuttal.
Considerations
[13] The Defense Arguments:
- 1. PuP has shared CP in its channels,
- 2. PuP and TIDE had access at some point,
- 3. The defendant is alleged (in the court of public opinion) to have ties to TIDE,
- 4. TIDE has a history of Doxxing people,
- 5. Thus the affected user is guilty of sharing CP and Doxxing; did not convince the court.
[14] Art. 56 §1 Criminal Code 2020 has the following requirements.
- 1. Caused a Person to feel undue/unjustifiable apprehension/alarm/distress
- 2. Intention to cause this apprehension OR acted with reckless disregard
[15] The allegations against the affected user would be undue or unjustified if they were not in accordance with the established reality before the law. The Court acknowledges that the legal system operates based a legal fiction of facts in which sometimes things need to be proved to be established as fact. The system of law and justice acknowledges only those facts that can be supported by evidence. Whatever not proven or commonly accepted as objective truth (like the laws of nature or the passage of time) has to be dismissed. The court takes notice that the user affected is not currently lawfully sentenced and thus enjoys the presumption of innocence. The defence did not provide facts that established a doubt that the user affected took any part or had any knowledge off the action committed by either TIDE or PuP. The Witness testified that the user had left TIDE. Given the affected user themselves is currently facing charges of Terrorist Conspiracy the rule of in dubio pro reo has to be applied to them as well as to not expose them to the risk of compromising their rights before the court by establishing unproven facts in unrelated trials to the detriment of the affected that are the very subject of the currently ongoing trial before the same court.
[16] The affected user did not provide statements of fact themselves before this court for this trial. The Court takes notice of the meaning of the English word “distress” as meaning “to make someone feel very upset or worried”. The evidence provided by the state shows the affected user repeatedly asking law government officials to take action against the continued spread of these messages against their person. Indicating they were at least worried about the spread of these messages in the wider State.
[17] The defendant might be justified in sharing their messages if they were covered under protected political expression. The Court applies the test established in In re Restraining Order Act [2019] SDSC 1 [15]. There exists a scale between legitimate expression and criminal conduct upon which every expression is to be weighed. The Supreme Court established legitimate political or religious belief and criminal actions like harassment or doxxing as fix points on this scale. The court thus has to determine where on this scale the messages by g470_ are situated. The fact that harassment itself is a fix point in a harassment trial is not helpful as assuming something is harassment to determine if something is harassment would violate in dubio pro reo.
[18] The Court did not establish a test for what is legitimate political expression. Therefore the following will be applied until the Supreme Court provides another guidance. Political Expression is at least that expression that is aimed at partaking in the political process. To that end the message needs to be capable of affecting the political process of SimDemocracy.
[19] The messages by g470_ were statements of fact against another user without any proof, without any call to action, plea to the government or authorities of SimDemocracy, without any plea to the electorate of SimDemocracy, without any plea to any party, without any context to ongoing political debate, not within the conduct of a political office, be it within the state or within a political organisation, nor did any material affect was demonstrated by the defence. Actually the witness established that the sentiment amongst the population of SimDemocracy before was already convinced of the guilt of the affected and thus no material effect upon the political process of SimDemocracy could be determined by the Court, nor any potential for such. Thus the messages do not fall under the protection of political expression.
[20] The messages could be protected as personal expressions of a belief held by g470_. The messages in their wording did not contain opinions with elements of statements of viewpoints that do not claim to be conclusive. In fact they did proclaim supposed facts against the affected. They thus were not opinions. It is established that freedom of speech is a qualified right that is measured against other rights, like the presumption of innocence or the right to liberty of a person or the heightened protection of a minor (ref. In re Restraining Order Act [2019] SDSC 1 [14, 16], SD v Flashing Lights [2025] Crim 105 [12]). Since these rights were infringed upon (see above) and an public onslaught of unproven allegations of messages if they can not be backed up with proof can be seen as disturbing content to a minor, paying respect to their mental health and development, the protection of freedom of expression has to recede to protect the other constitutional protections.
[21] The defence did not put forward evidence that provided the affected user committed any of the criminal acts proclaimed by g470_. The messages are not covered by political expression or personal expression protections and thus are unjustified and not protected. They caused unjustified distress to the affected.
[22] Further intent and intent towards the effect of the message need to be proven under the Criminal Code 2020 to prove a 1st Degree of Harassment. This establishes a direct mens rea element.
[23] The Court can not breach the internal motivation and train of thought of the accused and thus has to determine their intent by their actions and by the evidence put forth by the defence and prosecution. No evidence to this end could be sufficiently established.
[24] Intent can express themselves in different ways. A person may with full will to see an end materialised decide to take an action, knowing the end can be materialised. Or a person can, fully knowing a certain action will create a certain consequence, decide to execute that action. Between these two direct forms of direct intent (Dolus Directus) exists another form, recklessness to the effect of an action in which a person has sufficient knowledge that an action might have a consequence but still decides to execute the action, paying no mind to the effect materialising or accepting it as an acceptable side effect of another end being achieved (Dolus Eventualis). Any of these three forms of intent would constitute intent. This is explicitly acknowledged in Art. 56 § 1.2 Criminal Code which lists both direct intent and recklessness as satisfactory for the element of mens rea.
[25] The accused sent a volume of message in public channels, the large volume of messages and the repeated nature of its claims in gravity and reference to a specific user make it obvious their posting was intentional. Every sane person would recognise that posting claims a user committed actions that would be criminal under real life laws, which are superior to the Terms of Service as the ToS operate within their legal frameworks, which itself is superior to SimDemocracy and its legislation, could cause distress in a person. G470_ had at least recklessness in relation to the effects of their messages and the distress it caused, a case of dolus eventualis is satisfied.
Verdict and Sentence
[26] The Court finds that the requirements for Harassment in the First Degree are fulfilled and finds g470_ guilty.
[27] According to Art. 56 § 4 Criminal Code, the court has to issue a ban of more than 6 Months. g470_ is sentenced to serve a ban of 1 year. They sent a repeated amount of messages capable of causing distress without putting forth any proof that their claims were in any way, shape or form justified or true. In that they caused distress.
Trial Motions
[28] During the trial the defence appealed the court's decision on an objection. Upon review of law and jurisprudence it became obvious that no law existed that governed the legal effects or legal framework for objections within SimDemocracy. The Court thus applied the following: Paying heed to the way courts applied objections in SD v bedshaped. [2025] Crim 89, SD v Joseph Memestar [2020] Crim 9, SD v Kamray23 [2020] Crim 5 et. al. and the legal theory expressed in Art. 5 § 3 CPA (which was applied analogous as far as the different nature of the two legal instruments allowed for such): An objection may be appealed to the Court that ruled on the Objection, such an appeal has to be raised immediately. Upon the appeal the court has to review the objection again and issue another decision, either upholding the decision on the objection or issue a new decision on the objection. Adequate reasoning needs to be provided.
Citations
<references />