SD v nolan0027 2025 Crim 174
SD v Nolan [2025] Crim 174
| Date of judgment | 30th January 2026 |
| Judge | Judge Benbookworm |
| Charges |
|
| Verdict |
|
| Sentence |
|
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Judge Benbookworm
Introduction
[1] The prosecution brings charges of six counts of obscene materials (Article 59 of the Criminal Code 2020) and one count of Terms of Service (TOS) violation (Article 64 of the [[Criminal Code 2020]). They seek a two month ban for each count of obscene materials, a permanent ban for the TOS violation, and the enforcement of the terms of a previous plea agreement.
- [1.1] The original criminal complaint included charges of sexual harassment and hate speech that were subsequently dropped. This was subsequent to underlying evidence being struck as inadmissible.
[2] The crime of obscene materials is defined as:
"§1. Whoever posts content in a venue that could be viewed by the public that consists of gore, violence, or other materials not suitable for viewing in a public place, and would cause distress to a reasonable person, commits the crime of posting obscene materials.
At the time of the criminal complaint, the sentences available for posting obscene materials shall be a mute or ban of duration above one (1) week. At the current time, the sentences available for posting obscene materials shall be a mute or ban of duration above three (3) weeks."
[3] The crime of Terms of Service violation is defined as:
"§1. Whoever breaches the Terms of Service, Community Guidelines, or other binding document of the platform where the crime is committed, in a manner in which SimDemocracy is expected and able to enforce, commits the crime of Terms of Service Violation. §2. The sentences available for Terms of Service Violation shall be a mute or ban of up to a lifetime and shall be individually determined in each case, taking into account the specific provision violated and the effects of the violatory action."
Obscene Materials
First charge of obscene materials
[4] The first charge of obscene materials is a hodge-podge of messages from the accused using the word “dih” in various contexts.
- On 3 April 2025, the accused said, “MY DIH IS IN PAIN IM SORRY”.
- On 25 April 2025, the accused said, “I'm gonna have to hold ur dih while I tell u ts 💔 [broken heart emoji]”.
- On 12 June 2025, the accused said, “His dih😔 [pensive face emoji]” response to “What's his prized possession”.
- On 16 August 2025, the accused said, “Hop off my long ahh dih”.
- On 5 October 2025, the accused said, “Ur just saying that cuz u ain't get no dih”.
[5] The prosecution claims that the accused has repeatedly spoken about their and other people’s penis in a way which the reasonable person would find distressing and is not suitable for public viewing.
[6] The defense does not contest that such could be a phallic reference, but instead credibly asserts that the use of “dih” is a meme that would be seen by a reasonable person as humorous.
- [6.1] Per CPA 13§5(k), it cannot escape the notice of the court how many times the similar word “verdih” has been used in the courts of SimDemocracy, including by presiding judges.
[7] Thus, the use of “dih” is not itself obscene, but the underlying phallic context ought to still be evaluated. The seminal case on the matter (pun intended) is In re Toastdick Emoji [2020] SDSC 17. In [15] the Supreme Court gives an example of mild NSFW that would cause a reasonable person to be uncomfortable: “a very graphic object with little to no context”.
- [7.1] The interpretive lens of SD v thesigmasquad (Remanded) [2025] Crim 38 [B11] is valuable here: “that which is not even ‘mild NSFW’ is safe for work, and definitionally suitable for viewing in a public place.”
[8] In re Toastdick Emoji uses the language “uncomfortable” and the statute on obscene materials uses the stronger word “distress”. While the charged conduct is crass and inappropriate in polite society, it does not meet the Supreme Court’s definition of mild NSFW nor compare in any way to their given example. The material is legally insufficient to make someone uncomfortable, and further fails to meet the higher bar of causing distress to a reasonable person.
[9] Thus, the accused is not guilty of the first charge of obscene materials.
Second and third charges of Obscene Materials
[10] The second and third charges of obscene materials are the accused saying “Noooo!! Don't put it in!!! Kamcha-san...!” on 14 December 2025, and under an hour later saying, “Well I said smth from my favorite hentai 'don't put it in..!'”.
[11] The prosecution alleges this reference to sexual intercourse is distressing and is not suitable for public viewing. The prosecution alleges that by both speaking about a “favourite hentai” and then describing how it works, a reasonable person would be distressed by the open discussion of pornographic material not suitable for public viewing.
[12] The defense points to a lack of surrounding context and being unsure of whether the posted place was public, but the evidence document included a hyperlink to a message in #general that is part of the conversation captured by screenshot.
[13] The court turns to [[Ppatpat and brandmal, ex parte thesigmasquad (Appellant) v State of SimDemocracy (Respondent) 2025 SDSC 13}|ppatpat and brandmal, ex parte thesigmasquad (Appellant) v State of SimDemocracy (Respondent) [2025] SDSC 13]] (ex parte thesigmasquad hereafter) for binding precedent on by-proxy materials. As per [17.3-17.4] therein, “sharing content which necessitates the recipient to seek out potentially obscene material” is insufficient for criminal liability.
[14] The alleged misconduct here does not itself meet the bar for obscene materials, and to find the source of the quotation would require the recipient to seek it out on their own.
[15] Thus, the accused is not guilty of the second nor third charges of obscene materials.
Fourth charge of Obscene Materials
[16] The fourth charge of obscene materials comes from an isolated screenshot from the audit log of the accused having deleted a message where they said "She's so goonable bro". No date is provided.
[17] The prosecution argues that the accused’s desire to be sexually aroused and then edge to an unidentified woman would cause distress to a reasonable person and is not suitable for public viewing.
[18] The defense argues that the accused is not stating that they are committing a sex act, nor describing one.
[19] Again, this is a crass, and an impolite way to refer to a woman, but not illegal.
[20] Thus, the accused is not guilty of the fourth charge of obscene materials.
Fifth charge of Obscene Materials
[21] In the fifth charge of obscene materials, the accused said “Whats the best gooning site” on 16 December 2025.
[22] The prosecution presents that by asking this, it is reasonably interpreted that the accused is wishing to be directed to a porn site which is by nature obscene, distressing, and not suitable for public viewing.
[23] The defense presents that while pornographic material is of an explicit nature, the defendant is not posting pornographic material to the public space.
[24] Under ex parte thesigmasquad, even someone answering and directing the accused where to find their desired pornographic material would likely not be guilty of posting obscene materials (as some caveats are present there). The accused is therefore multiple steps away from the necessary threshold.
[25] Thus, the accused is not guilty of the fifth charge of obscene materials.
Sixth charge of Obscene Materials
[26] In the last of six charges of obscene materials, the accused posted an image saying that “Group gooning starts in 5 minutes” on 17 December 2025.
[27] The prosecution reiterates previous arguments about such being distressing and not suitable for public viewing.
[28] The defense counters that it does not literally equate to an invitation to a group masturbation session, and that the message is relying on absurdity to be perceived as humorous.
[29] Much as the prosecution pointed out how the arguments up to this point have been repetitious, so is the court’s reasoning here.
[30] Thus, the accused is not guilty of the sixth charge of obscene materials. The accused is not guilty of all charges of obscene materials.
Terms of Service Violation
[31] In the charge of Terms of Service violation, the defendant sent a psychedelic video that contained imagery of the Black Sun (sonnenrad) and swastika on 21 December 2025. The audio largely consists of “I miss the Reich” repeated over and over. The imagery also includes depictions of Adolf Hitler, and a train credibly alleged to be that of one transporting holocaust victims to a concentration camp.
- [31.1] The defense presented a video with the same audio track indicating the lyrics are “miss the rage”, but the context of the posted message provides clearly that it is used subversively as a dog whistle. In this instance, the attempt of the video creator at plausible deniability is not actually plausible.
[32] Point 4 of the Discord Community Guidelines clearly prohibits the use of hate symbols and imagery. The Hateful Conduct Policy Explainer makes clear “Hate symbols include acronyms, numbers, phrases, logos, flags, gestures or any other symbols used to promote or incite hatred”. While possible educational or culturally appropriate uses are permitted, no such circumstance is present here.
[33] The defense makes a valiant appeal to the Anti-Defamation League’s page on the Sonnenrad, which reads,
“Because sonnenrad imagery is used by many cultures around the world, one should not assume that most sonnenrad-like images necessarily denote racism or white supremacy; rather, they should be analyzed carefully in the context in which they appear.”
- [33.1] Nevertheless, such is insufficient to overcome the mountain of other hate symbols present in the message.
[34] The accused is unequivocally guilty of egregiously violating Discord’s Terms of Service.
Sentencing
[35] In the criminal complaint, the prosecution requested the convict be permanently banned (the statute provides for sentences of a mute or ban of up to a lifetime) and the suspended sentence from a plea deal on 28 November 2025 be enacted. They also point to both a previous conviction and a different plea deal—both related to hate speech—to indicate that the accused has a relevant criminal history that warrants a harsher sentence.
[36] To counter the convict’s criminal history, the defense highlights that the previous findings of guilt were for “hate speech” rather than “Terms of Service violations”; the underlying conduct here clearly indicates this is a distinction without a difference. The defense points towards their invaluable aid with intelligence and counter-terrorism operations against TIDE. They argue that the imagery posted was meant as a spectacle rather than an endorsement of hateful views.
[37] The court now turns to the Sentencing Act. Per Article 2, the chief purposes of a sentence needs to be identified—all of them apply here. Nevertheless, the primary reasoning here is that of denouncing such thoughtlessness in posting extremely hateful imagery. The second purpose is to rehabilitate them until they have matured and reformed.
[38] Article 3§2 of the Sentencing Act requires that egregious violations of the Terms of Service receive a minimum sentence of three months. That is insufficient. The criminal conduct here warrants an indefinite ejection from SimDemocracy’s society.
- [38.1] Unlike in SD v We_are_all_Uno [2019] Crim 2, the convict did not have the common sense to plead guilty. This court shall not lower the sentence from permanent.
[39] In light of the convict’s genuinely valuable contributions in counter-terrorism, instead of a permanent ban, they shall instead receive a permanent mute. The suspended sentence from their plea deal is also to be enacted: a two year ban. At an appropriate time, they may seek whatever options of clemency are available.