Benitfeet v NovaSM 2020 Civ 1
Benitfeet v NovaSM 2020 Civ 1
| Date of judgment | 22nd April 2020 |
|---|---|
| Judge | Judge Wolf |
| Grounds | Civil harassment (common law) |
| Verdict | D held liable for civil harassment |
| Result | D had to make a public apology to P in #general-announcements D had to pay 10 Tau in compensation to P D had to pay all of P’s legal fees Injunction issued against D ordering them to stop pinging and sending dms to P |
| Applicable persuasive precedent | Actions done inside the courtroom are admissible as evidence, regardless of whether it was entered as evidence using formal procedure or not, 4 Crimes don’t automatically have civil counterparts under common law, 7 Unwanted pinging constitutes civil harassment, 8 It does not matter whether P is a public official; they are entitled to the same protection under the civil law as ordinary citizens, 9 It does not matter whether D infringed on P’s civil rights[1] with jest; an infringement of rights is an infringement, 9 Criminal cases are entirely separate from civil cases; the result of a criminal case is irrelevant to a civil case, 11 |
JUDGMENT by Judge Wolf
Arguments
[1]. The arguments presented by the plaintiff in this hearing were that by pinging the plaintiff repeatedly, and then doing so after the plaintiff asked the defendant to stop, article 63 of the Criminal Code had been violated. Article 63 sets out that, “unwanted behaviour that demeans, humiliates or embarrases a person” is a crime.
[2]. The plaintiff sought reparations and a binding order requiring the defendant to issue a public apology to the plaintiff.
[3]. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was not unnecessarily pinged, that the defendant only pinged the plaintiff a single instance after being asked to stop, that all pings were made in a playful context and that nothing was done with malicious intent. In addition, the defendant argued that the ping made after the request to stop was made was of a funny meme, and that the Discord Supervisor should expect, in their role as Discord Supervisor, to be pinged.
Legal issues
[4]. This court put into question the procedural issue of evidence that comes into existence within the judicial proceedings but is not formally entered into the court. It is the view of this court that any actions by the defendant, the plaintiff, and their respective counsellors do not fall outside the eyes of the court. It is as plain to see in the eyes of the court the actions of all parties during the judicial proceedings of a case as it is to see a person fire a gun in a live court room. This court defined the scope of the judicial proceedings to include not just the hearing itself but the scheduling preparations of the hearing, which the judge must always take part in for the hearing to commence. Thus, the court did not find it outside the scope of its eyes to note that the defendant had pinged the plaintiff during the period of scheduling the hearing.
[5]. The court also observes that this judge expressed opinions throughout the hearing. The purpose of this was not to prejudice justice, but instead to allow all parties insight into the developing view of the sitting judge on specific arguments and pieces of evidence. In doing so, both sides are advantaged to know where the perceived strengths and weaknesses in their case are, in order to present a clearer case to the judge on the facts available. Thus, the expression of opinion during the hearing in the courtroom itself promoted the allowance of a fair and just hearing.
Findings of the Court
[6]. The material facts of this case, based on the evidence submitted by the plaintiff and the conduct of defendant during the judicial proceedings, show that the plaintiff was pinged by the defendant several times. After several pings, he was requested to stop but continued with a further ping of a meme. During the scheduling phase of the judicial proceedings, the defendant pinged the plaintiff several more times. This clearly amounted to an unwanted amount of pinging, which was clearly communicated to the defendant by the plaintiff but ignored.
[7]. The only argument the court had to rely on by the plaintiff was that the defendant breached an article of the Criminal Code. It is the opinion of this court that the existence of Crime does not create a civil right for that crime to not be done from one individual to another. Civil hearings are focused on the violation of rights and damage caused by the defendant to the plaintiff. It is the duty of the court in a civil hearing, to place the plaintiff in the position they were in before harm was caused, as best as the court is able to.
[8]. The right to not be pinged to an unwanted degree is one which this court has previously recognised exists, under the umbrella of harassment more generally. This precedent (while not binding on this court, but merely persuasive) has been established in /u/NovaSM v. /u/dickhead68 (cr.3, t) 12.7.19[2].
[9]. The plaintiff clearly violated the right of the Discord Supervisor, albeit to a minor degree. The arguments by the defence were not compelling. There is no office or position in SimDemocracy which someone ought to expect that will have their rights infringed, nor does it matter if their rights were infringed as a matter of jest.
[10]. With respect to the severity of the conduct of the defendant, overall it was minor. Pinging someone three or four times after being asked to stop, while annoying, is not going to cause a day to be ruined but instead temporarily annoy an individual at most.
[11]. This court rejects any connection between this matter and any crime, as it is a civil hearing. I find the defendant responsible for the civil charge of harassment, which has been developed within SimDemocracy’s common law system.
[12]. The court grants the request of the plaintiff and orders the defendant to issue a public apology in the #general-announcements channel to the plaintiff. Monetary compensation of 10 tau is also to be paid to the plaintiff, as well as the defendant paying for all legal fees of the court. An injunction is issued preventing the defendant from pinging or direct messaging the plaintiff for the next 10 days.
