SD v npmdbcofpudkrd 2025 Crim 114
SD v npmdbcofpudkrd [2025] Crim 114
| Date of judgment | 5th August 2025 |
| Judge | Judge Average787Enjoyer |
| Charges |
|
| Verdict | Guilty on both counts |
| Sentence | 2 years 6 months ban |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Average787Enjoyer
Facts of the case
[1] The defendant sent a message saying “MEDMOUSE IS A GOONING J*** WHO GOONED TO THIS PIC ONT TWITTER…” along with a link to an image (with an embed) depicting a woman posing with little to no clothing
[2] The word beginning with J is a term used derogatively to refer to people of South Asian descent and especially Indians.
Arguments made
[3] On the count of hate speech, the prosecution argued that the word in question was a slur due to being a derogatory term used to refer to a group’s protected characteristic (race), and that it was used recklessly without regard as to whether it would upset, demean, or humiliate by virtue of being used in the manner it was in the sentence.
[4] The defense counters that the statement, in context, does not show a clear purpose to demean or humiliate based on a protected characteristic, and further that the word concerned does not meet the threshold of a universally recognized slur as defined within SimDemocracy’s jurisdiction
[5] Regarding the count of Terms of Service Violation, the prosecution argued that the image in question, while not overtly depicting anything that would make it sexually explicit content, is sexually suggestive under Discord’s Sexual Content Policy Explainer by being content that may evoke sexual arousal. Additionally, the prosecution posits that a reasonable person would not consent to being sent sexual content and then report that content to the SDBI. The court also notes that the prosecution attempted to call the victim as a witness to prove that they did not consent, but because they did not notify the court of this in pre-trial and because the testimony was not both new and vital to their case, the motion was overturned in keeping with SD v Notcommunist366, Creative, & Acool [2025] Crim 103.
[6] The defense countered that the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that the image is sexually suggestive and furthermore that the prosecution failed to meet the standard showing lack of consent
On the count of Hate Speech
[7] The court takes Judicial Notice of the meaning of the English word in question beginning with J
[8] The word in question can represent a clipping of “Pajeet” which is a derogatory term for people of South Asian descent, especially Indians, created as a fake name on 4chan in 2015.
[9] In order to determine whether or not the word is a slur, the court looks at the definition of a slur given in Article 56a S2.1, which defines one as “any derogatory or insulting term applied to a group of persons classed by a protected characteristic” (in this case race). As the court has already found this term to be derogatory and applied to a group of persons classed by a protected characteristic, the court finds that the word in question can constitute a slur.
[10] The word in question can also be a contraction of “did you eat?” or as a derogatory noun referring to investors who panic-sell, however the second sense was also derived from the first and is equally derogatory, as it stems from the view that posters of Indian descent promoted low-circulation cryptocurrencies on a separate 4-chan board and sold them at the first sign of a downturn. The word can additionally be used as a contraction of “did you eat?” but the court rejects the possibility that it could mean that as “did you eat?” is not a noun, and in the sentence in question, the word in question was used as a noun. Therefore, the court finds that in this case the word constitutes a slur.
[11] Regarding intent to demean, upset, or humiliate, the prosecution stated that the word in its context shows a clear intent to upset, demean, or humiliate. The defense countered that the prosecution has not provided adequate evidence to show intent or recklessness.
[12] In this case, the court concurs with the prosecution that the use of the word in its context can show intent or at least recklessness. The word in context within the sentence, in the opinion of the court, cannot be construed to be anything other than clearly targeted and upsetting, demeaning, or humiliating. Additionally, the message was sent seemingly unprovoked, further supporting the idea that the message was sent intentionally or at least recklessly to demean, upset, or humiliate.
[13] Therefore, the court finds the defendant guilty of one count of Hate Speech
On the count of Terms of Service Violation
[14] In order to determine whether the Article 64 was violated, the court must discern 2 things: Whether the ToS was actually violated, and whether it was violated in a manner SimDemocracy is expected to enforce.
[15] Regarding whether it was actually violated, the first question before the court is whether or not the content in the image (described as “a woman posing with little to no clothing”) is sexually suggestive under Discord’s Sexual Content Policy Explainer, as defined in [5]. Regarding this, the court finds that it is, as the message attached to the image states that the image was “gooned” to on Twitter, referring to a sex act related to sexual arousal and its evocation, suggesting that it is quite possible that the image could provoke sexual arousal, even without overt depiction of genitalia, etc.
[16] The simple act of posting sexually suggestive content in a DM is not a violation of the ToS, and instead the court must determine whether or not it was consensual. To determine this, the court shall look at the context, or rather lack thereof, surrounding the message. The message appears to be sent without any context whatsoever in DMs, given that a pop-up is present prompting the recipient to report the message as spam or to accept it and given that no other messages can be seen in the screenshot. For the purposes of determining consent in this case, the court finds a lack of dissent within the DM channel insufficient, supported by the Sexual Content Policy Explainer (“Don’t send sexual content directly to others unless you’re sure they want to see or receive it” under the “How to Avoid Violating this Policy” section).
[17] Furthermore, the court concurs with the Prosecution’s assertion that no reasonable person would consent to have a message sent to them and then immediately report it to the SDBI. Therefore, the court finds that this constitutes a violation of Discord’s ToS.
[18] The defense argued that SimDemocracy is not expected or able to enforce Discord’s Sexual Content Policy Explainer, an assertion which the court rejects on the grounds that the Policy Explainer includes a section directing servers on the enforcement of it, and because the case falls within SimDemocracy’s jurisdiction, making it able to enforce it in both a legal and a functional sense.
[19] Therefore, the court finds the defendant guilty of 1 count of Terms of Service Violation
Sentencing
[20] The prosecution suggested a 6 month ban for the count of Hate Speech and a permanent ban for the Terms of Service Violation
[21] The court sentences the defendant to a 6 month ban for the count of Hate Speech, as it is in keeping with precedent, especially given the lack of any mitigating circumstances
[22] The court sentences the defendant to a 2 year ban for the count of Terms of Service Violation, as it is in keeping with precedent regarding sentences for Sexual Harassment, a fairly similar offense to this specific ToS violation.