SD v keepbloxburgsafe 2025 Crim 20
SD v keepbloxburgsafe [2025] Crim 20
| Date of judgment | 10th March 2025 |
| Judge | Judge Benbookworm |
| Charges | Five charges of ToS Violation (Article 61 of the Criminal Code) |
| Verdict | Mistrial |
| Sentence | Mistrial |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
REMANDED JUDGMENT by Benbookworm
[R1] The remand on SD v keepbloxburgsafe [2025] Crim 20 is rendered moot by the subsequent dismissal with prejudice.
JUDGMENT by Judge Benbookworm
Arguments
[1] The Defendant @bbq is charged with five counts of violating the Discord Terms of Service in sending direct messages alleged to be threatening.
[2] The prosecution alleges that four of the counts are indirect threats, wherein the defendant said "Aligning with those who seek to destabilize our cause could have serious consequences." For each charge the prosecution recommends between a ban between six months and permanent. The prosecution alleges that the fifth count is a direct threat, wherein the defendant said "you are now under close observation" and "If you continue on your current path, expect full exposure of your actions and their consequences." The prosecution recommends a permanent ban for this charge.
[3] The defense argues that the messages do not qualify as Terms of Service violations, but concedes they could fall under a different crime.
Relevant Law
[4] The charges are brought under Discord's Bullying, Harassment, and Threats Policy Explainer. The relevant section on Threats reads:
"We have a strict policy against any form of threats towards others. This includes threats of physical attacks, emotional suffering, reputational damage, and any hostile actions intended to cause pain, loss, or injury. We may escalate threats to law enforcement if we believe it is required to prevent immediate harm."
[5] Specific examples are then listed:
- [5.1] Threatening to physically harm another individual or group of people
- [5.2] Threatening to hack another individual's account, network, or system
- [5.3] Threatening to reveal another individual’s Personally Identifiable Information (PII), such as a name, home address, Social Security number, and any other sensitive data
- [5.4] Threatening to reveal another individual’s private sexual content
[6] While the initial text regarding threats appears broad, the examples point to actionable and specific threats.
[7] Nighteye (Appellant) v LordDeadlyOwl (Respondent) [2020] SDSC 5 establishes that inferior courts are adversarial ones, and the judge may not front their own arguments.
Verdict
[8] I cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that the non-actionable threats made by defendant are equivalent to the specific examples given by Discord.
[9] Pursuant to the Criminal Code Article 3§3, I determine that the charges are not appropriate for the given actions, yet may qualify as a criminal offense regardless, and declare a mistrial.
[10] I order the defendant @bbq to be released.
[11] I stay this order for 24 hours to permit an application for appeal.
Citations
<references />