SD v usernameselected 2025 Crim 73
SD v usernameselected [2025] Crim 73
| Date of judgment | 10th June 2025 |
| Judge | Judge Benbookworm |
| Charges | 1 charge Terms of Service Violation (Article 63 of the Criminal Code 2020) |
| Verdict | Charge dismissed |
| Sentence | N/A |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Judge Benbookworm
Terms of Service Violation: Self-harm
[1] The prosecution brought forward a single charge of Terms of Service Violation under Criminal Code 2020 Article 63 for sharing an otherwise innocuous image subtitled "i hope you die", positing that it violates Discord's Community Guidelines #11 (regarding self-harm). The court cannot find probable cause that the charged conduct promotes suicide or other forms of self-harm.
[2] While the above is possibly sufficient to dismiss this case, I will also opt to further evaluate the charge in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
Community Guidelines: Bullying, Harassment, and Threats
[3] Rather than just point 11, I also take judicial notice of points 1 and 2 of the Discord Community Guidelines (the Bullying, Harassment, and Threats Policy Explainer), as the prosecution could potentially continue under this theory without substantial modification to the filed criminal complaint.
[4] The most similar example under the heading Bullying and Harassment is:
"Posting content with the intent to cause disgust, anger, or fear, including content that mocks the death of an individual".
The court will evaluate this in parts.
Did the defendant post content?
[5] The prosecution credibly alleges that the defendant posted content. Under SD v the_sigma_squad [2025] Crim 38 [7], it is not relevant that the image is embedded from elsewhere, even from tools made available by Discord.
[6] The defense credibly alleges jest, although such would have to be shown at trial, not in a motion to dismiss. The prosecution alleged that jest is not a defense (see SD v Mooklyn [2021] Crim 4), but such an argument is overly broad. Unlike charges brought under Criminal Code 2020 Article 55a or similar, neither Article 63 nor the Community Guidelines have a presumption of intent. That is to say, this is not a matter of strict liability, but requires mens rea.
- [6.1] Intent to cause such negative emotions is unclear in this case, based on the meager evidence provided by the prosecution, but there are non-frivolous arguments for such.
Does the charged conduct cause disgust, anger, or fear?
[7] Using SD v Panzzrr [2025] Crim 54 as a guide, I find that simply expressing hope that an untargeted someone dies does not cause apprehension either. Even with respect to the Shooter Test established in SD v MrMises [2020] Crim 16, this was not even directed to a "class of individuals".
Does this mock the death of an individual?
[8] Several dictionaries concur that this should be interpreted as "to treat with contempt or ridicule" (Merriam-Webster), "to make something appear stupid or not effective” (Cambridge), or "to laugh at somebody/something in an unkind way, especially by copying what they say or do” (Oxford Learner's).
- [8.1] It is unclear whether the charged conduct constitutes mocking. However, it is clear that this is not mocking the death of an individual.
Verdict
[9] I order this case dismissed, for not having probable cause. The court thanks the parties and the (unused) amicus for their time.
Citations
<references />