SD v mayuuii 2025 Crim 84
SD v mayuuii [2025] Crim 84
| Date of judgment | 23rd June 2025 |
| Judge | Judge Benbookworm |
| Charges | 3 charges of Hate Speech (Article 56a of the Criminal Code) |
| Verdict | Guilty plea |
| Sentence | Three (3) month ban for each charge, to run concurrently |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Judge Benbookworm
Intro
[1] The defense has entered a guilty plea to all counts. The court accepts this plea.
[2] The criminal complaint points to three instances from about five months ago showing the defendant sending slurs, presenting screenshots from the audit logs showing the messages were deleted. The images indicate three uses of the n-word: once in its “hard” form, and twice in its “soft” form.
- [2.1] The definition of hate speech and recommended sentencing has changed in the intervening time. Saying slurs has continuously been illegal; guilt is still established.
[3] The criminal complaint requests three permanent bans. Various potential plea deals were presented, one for a ban 10,000 years, another for one permanent ban. Ultimately, none of the plea deals were accepted by all parties.
- [3.1] The prosecution has not presented aggravating factors. The defense has only presented the guilty plea as a mitigating factor.
Statutory law
[4] Under the Courtroom Procedures Act 2025 Art 7§4.2 the court must ensure that sentencing is done in accordance with law, which would include both statutory and case law.
[5] Under the Sentencing Act Art. 1§4 the final verdict must explain the sentencing, modifying factors, and any framework used.
- [5.1] Potentially relevant considerations (expanded upon later in this verdict) include: severity of the offense, the need for public protection against a defendant, distinctness of the offenses, the mitigation of a guilty plea, and other considerations the court deems relevant.
- [5.2] Analogizing to the framework for harassment, the pattern of behavior and no remorse shown beyond a guilty plea indicate that Band 4 would be appropriate, which recommends “1 Year ”. This is not a perfect fit, but is useful to consider.
- [5.2.1] At the time of the charged conduct and now, the Criminal Code has listed hate speech as a subcategory of harassment, with lower minimum sentences.
[6] The current Criminal Code 2020 Art. 56a§4 differentiated between first degree hate speech that included a presumed mens rea and second degree that had no scienter requirement. The first led to a sentence above three months, and the second to a sentence between one and six months.
- [6.1] At the time of the charged conduct, Criminal Code 2020 Art. 53a differentiated between first degree hate speech that included a presumed mens rea and second degree that had no scienter requirement. The first led to a sentence above three months, and the second to a sentence between one and six months.
- [6.2] Then and now, intent is presumed when slurs are said; the defense offered no counter to the presumption. Thus the sentencing guidelines for second degree hate speech do not apply here.
- [6.3] Keep in mind that per binding precedent in Spade Law Firm, ex parte State of SimDemocracy (Appellant) v Freax (Respondent) [2020] SDSC 24 and the Constitution Art. 21§5 subsequent laws cannot ex post facto increase the penalty for offenses.
Comprehensive review of case law on hate speech sentences
[7] To come to a just sentence and fair hearing, the court looks to previous precedent. There doesn’t appear to yet exist a review categorizing the different sentences issued for hate speech; this presents an excellent opportunity.
- [7.1] While perhaps valuable to some, the sentences arising out of plea deals will not be analyzed at this juncture. This will review center on cases where a judge issued the sentence.
[8] In SD v We_are_all_Uno [2019] Crim 2 [2], the “crimes the defendant was charged with are among the most grave accusations our state can level against an individual” and included sexual harassment of a minor. The judge considered the defendant’s guilty plea as a mitigating factor, and levied a sentence of ten years.
- [8.1] This reasoning was reaffirmed in SD v keepbloxburgsafe [2025] Crim 28 [5].
- [8.2] The prosecution takes issue with the case, saying that the sentence was soft, speculative, and lacking legal reasoning. Note that it is the second criminal case ever heard in SimDemocracy.
- [8.3] The average user of SimDemocracy is unlikely to consider using a slur to be of the same gravity as sexually harassing a minor. This indicates a lower sentence in this case.
[9] In older hate speech cases, the sentences levied are below or near the current legal minimum: three days in SD v Shwiftula [2020] Crim 6, one week in SD v krystiancbarrie [2020] Crim 14, one month for two counts in SD v SeoulPig [2020] Crim 18 (see [18.2] here), and two weeks in SD v TopNotchCoffee [2020] Crim 19.
[10] In SD v Mooklyn [2021] Crim 4, slurs were not involved, so the sentencing was more complicated. The results of the different charges varied from two months to one year.
[11] Previous cases with notable mitigating circumstances demonstrating remorse have led to low sentences.
- [11.1] In SD v thelovedone9 [2025] Crim 8, the sentence was three months.
- [11.2] In the summary trial SD v nolan0027 [2025] Crim 27, the charges were each worthy of a one month ban.
- [11.2.1] The summary nature of the trial may indicate lower precedential value.
- [11.3] The only mitigation in the present case is pleading guilt.
- [11.3.1] Per the Sentencing Act Art. 1§3, this factor will only be applied to this case after determining an initial sentence later in this verdict.
[12] Some previous cases involving one count of hate speech have resulted in a ban of one year. SD v long hair boi [2021] Crim 6 and SD v MrMises [2020] Crim 16 were both for transphobic speech.
[13] In SD v Mooklyn (Remanded) [2023] Crim 1, the use of a slur was instead brought as a Terms of Service Violation, and the overall case resulted in a permanent ban. However, only six months is attributed to the hate speech; the other charge of conspiracy to harass led to the permanent ban.
[14] That same judge in SD v Mooklyn (Remanded) turned around in SD v Shun [2025] Crim 3 and levied a permanent ban for one count of hate speech.
- [14.1] The verdict discusses a distinction between first and second degree hate speech; the legislation has subsequently been amended, as addressed here in [6].
- [14.2] This court finds that analysis of the Terms of Service to be lacking, and instead points to SD v thefinalseason [2025] Crim 21 [3] and SD v dominax273 [2025] Crim 7 [6]. These point out that the Terms of Service is a minimum, and that the SimDemocracy Criminal Code penalizes hate speech that may not otherwise violate the Terms of Service.
- [14.3] Even the prosecution requested a sentence no greater than seven months. The verdict does not reference any case law in determining the length of the sentence.
- [14.4] From another judge in SD v warlock23 [2025] Crim 18, the two charges of second degree hate speech lead to bans of six months each, and the first degree charge to a permanent ban. The judge explained the reasoning for the guilt, but did not elaborate much on sentencing considerations.
- [14.5] This court does not find such to be persuasive; a permanent ban for an individual case of hate speech is wholly inconsistent with the overwhelming weight of precedent, before and after.
[15] In SD v dominax273 [2025] Crim 7, two counts of hate speech resulted in a total ban of eighteen months. Both it and the current case include the use of the same slur.
[16] In SD v Kadyisme [2025] Crim 9, the first degree charge led to six months, and the pair of second degree charges led to two months each.
[17] In SD v thefinalseason [2025] Crim 21 the sentence was three months for the “‘soft’ version of the ‘n-word’”. The judge determined that the hard/soft variants are inconsequential.
- [17.1] This indicates the present charges exhibit the same degree of criminality, although not the same quantity.
[18] In the very recent SD v Spy6gagen_officialaccount [2025] Crim 81, the defendant used a slur on 160 occasions, and was given a sentence of one month each.
- [18.1] It is odd that the judge did not consider the repeatedly criminality, but the verdict was very short.
- [18.2] This is reminiscent of SD v SeoulPig [2020] Crim 18 (briefly mentioned above in [9]): it is the current legal minimum, and both have sparse reasoning.
[19] For anyone reviewing hate speech case law in the future, charges of hate speech that resulted in not guilty verdicts include SD v changebac [2025] Crim 24, SD v wall.b [2025] Crim 46, SD v Panzzrr [2025] Crim 54, SD v mythrows [2025] Crim 51. Records regarding plea deals were not as accessible to the court, and have minimal precedential value.
Considerations and Verdict
[20] The statutory minimum is a ban or mute of one month. The highest persuasive sentence for an individual charge of hate speech is one year, but precedent varies wildly.
[21] Based on the uncontested evidence from the prosecution, the charges arise out of the same conversation (appears to be within one minute). The court determines this ought not count as repeated offense but instead towards the severity, and declines to issue escalating sentences for each charge.
[22] The need for public protection against a defendant is minimal, as the charged conduct occurred nearly five months ago.
[23] The defendant is given an initial sentence of a six (6) month ban for each charge.
- [23.1] The court finds this to be well aligned to previous precedent in cases with multiple offenses
[24] Applying the mitigating factor of pleading guilty, the sentence is modified downward to three (3) months each.
[25] While still somewhat new, it does not appear that previous verdicts have paid much heed to the Sentencing Act Art. 5, which lays out how to determine whether offenses are distinct in determining whether the sentences are to be concurrent or consecutive.
- [25.1] Based on the evidence from the prosecution, the timing of the charged conduct is very narrow: the charges appear to arise out of the same conversation.
- [25.2] The offenses present a similar purpose and resulted in the same type of charge.
- [25.3] Both of the above lead the court to determine that the offenses are not distinct. The sentences will run concurrently.
Final verdict
[26] The defendant is to be banned for three (3) months, to run concurrently as 90 days.
[27] The time is to be served from when they left the server. Based on the age of the charges, such has likely already elapsed.
[28] While an Inferior Court judge cannot do fact finding, any future consideration of the exact date of the sentence must also determine if the defendant was under arrest at the time of their departure, in which case the sentence must instead be calculated to run from the date of their arrest.
Citations
<references />