SD v thesigmasquad 2025 Crim 38
SD v thesigmasquad [2025] Crim 38
| Date of judgment | 13th April 2025 |
| Judge | Judge Average787enjoyer |
| Charges | 3 charges of Obscene Materials (Article 56 of the Criminal Code) |
| Verdict | Guilty of 3 charges of Obscene Materials |
| Sentence |
|
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
ORIGINAL JUDGMENT by Judge Average787enjoyer
Section 1: Facts of the Case
[A1] The defendant sent 3 gifs in #general, one of which showed a cat and the text “this cats name is twistedgrim look him up in discord search,” the second of which showed 2 scantily clad anime girls whom the prosecution alleged were underage, and the third of which showed a presumably female anime character with their breasts clearly showing
[A2] Searching for “twistedgrim” in the discord gif search shows photos of partially naked women
Section 2: Summary of the Arguments
[A3] On the first charge, the prosecution argued that obscene materials by proxy are still obscene materials, in the same manner as typing a link to pornography without the embed is still pornography. The defense counter-argued that because the gif itself was not obscene, it was not a violation of article 56
[A4] On the second charge, the prosecution argued that “kiss your sister” should be interpreted in an incestuous manner and therefore obscene according to the reasonable person, given that citizens of SimDemocracy reported the image as obscene. The defense counter-argued that only a “sick man” would find the image concerned obscene
[A5] On the third charge, the prosecution argued that exposed breasts should be considered obscene materials under article 56 due to how they are viewed sexually, and the defense counter-argued that viewing them sexually is paramount to the activities of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and would violate the equal protections clause under article 14 of the Constitution.
Section 3: Judgement on the first charge
[A6] The defense argued that the court should not allow the charge by proxy, as In re Replacement of KingRed31 [2020] SDSC 21, that a textualist approach to law is favoured. However, In re Replacement of KingRed31 also states that should that approach lead to an “undesirable outcome,” the court should look to original intent.
[A7] The issue now facing the court is that of whether or not allowing obscene materials to be posted by proxy because of the exact wording of Article 56 (for example, a link without an embed or a gif with instructions) is an “undesirable outcome,” and further whether or not the original intent of the lawmakers was to include proxy obscene materials as criminal. The court finds that allowing proxy obscene materials that would cause distress to a reasonable person who unwittingly accesses them would be an “undesirable outcome” under SDSC 21, and furthermore that the intent of the lawmakers was to keep explicit content, including explicit content by proxy, out of SimDemocracy.
[A8] The court finds further that the gif in question is an obscene material, albeit by proxy. If one were to create a bitly redirect to a porn website in such a manner that no embed would appear and post it without context, would a reasonable person not click on that link, see the explicit material, and experience distress, would the original poster not have “posted content in a venue that could be viewed by the public that consists of… materials not suitable for viewing in a public place?” The court finds that indeed they would have, that that applies to this gif to, and therefore that the defendant is guilty of one charge of posting obscene materials
[A9] SD v Dick_head68 [2020] Crim 2 sentences the defendant to a 2 week mute for a similar charge, however the court finds it ridiculous to hand down a sentence so light for posting sexually obscene materials in a discord server with minors. Instead, as there was some question regarding the obscenity of the material, the court sentences the defendant to a 1 month ban.
Section 4: Judgement on the second charge
[A10] For this charge, the prosecution argued that given the nature of the context and the fact that members of the community reported it to the SDBI, the gif in question should be considered obscene for the potentially incestuous text in it. This means that the question in front of the court is thus: Does a reasonable person interpret the text in the gif as incestuous?
[A11] The fact that the image was reported to the SDBI alone could not reasonably cause it to pass the reasonable person test, however, the fact that the court when looking at the image was distressed by it due to the text in that context should be considered causing distress to a reasonable person, as the court does not consider itself to be a “sick man”. Furthermore, the court finds that the image in question is not suitable for viewing in a public place, and finds the defendant guilty of a second charge of posting obscene materials and sentences them to a 75 day ban.
Section 5: Judgement on the third charge
[A12] This charge is perhaps the most straightforward of the 3, as the only question before the court is whether or not exposed female breasts can be considered sexual in nature. Given that in reality and on the internet, female breasts are often sexualized, even going to the point where female nipples, but not male ones are covered under indecent exposure laws in many US states, the court finds that, in fact, they can, and that in this case they should be. The court also finds that this is not paramount to the restrictions imposed on women by the Taliban, and finds the defendant guilty of a third charge of posting obscene materials, sentencing them to a 75 day ban.
Citations
<references />