In re Appeal of Summary Ban of Panzzrr 2025 SDSC 2
In re Appeal of Summary Ban of Panzzrr 2025 SDSC 2
| Alternate citation | In re Appeal of Summary Ban - "mc_uighilin" (u/Panzzrr) 2025 SDSC 2 |
|---|---|
| Date of judgment | 12th March 2025 |
| Justices | Chief Justice Alexa Justice Syndicality Justice TheLittleSparty |
| Held | Summary bans may only be used if the user in question is subsequently granted a trial in accordance with the Constitution. |
| Ruling |
|
| Applicable precedent |
|
MAJORITY OPINION by Justice TheLittleSparty
(with Chief Justice Alexa and Justice Syndicality agreeing)
Introduction
[1]. The appellant is seeking the overturning of their summary ban on the grounds that their actions do not meet the minimum criteria for such a ban under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act (hereafter CTSA)’s provisions, that they were denied due process compared to similar cases, and that the SDBI and involved individuals demonstrated bias against them during the application of their ban.
Summary of the petition
[2]. The appellant starts their petition by attempting to establish that their actions which resulted in their ban, while possibly criminal, did not meet the standard of “egregious” as outlined in the CTSA.
[3]. They go on to describe a very similar case involving comments of a similar nature made by another individual, localclosetshitter, which resulted in that individual being brought to trial. They argue that the difference in the alleged crimes was minimal, while the difference in reaction by law enforcement was very considerable. The appellant highlights their contributions to SimDemocracy in contrast to localclosetshitter’s status as a very new user, and alleges hypocritical actions on the part of those who enacted their ban.
[4]. They continue this line of reasoning into allegations that the SDBI knowingly failed to do its duty to investigate his actions, and that a bias against them was displayed.
[5]. They close by discussing the plea deal arranged on behalf of localclosetshitter, noting that the duration of the ban for that plea deal, had they instead been awarded such a deal, would have lapsed by the time this appeal is being heard.
Summary of the response
[6]. The respondent starts their response by alleging that the appellant's actions do meet the minimum criteria for a CTSA ban, and that any misconduct by officials responsible for enacting this summary ban does not apply to this appeal. Furthermore, the respondent suggests that the appellant pursue any allegations of misconduct through proper channels.
[7]. They go on to discuss both Discord’s Terms of Service and SimDemocracy’s Criminal Code definitions of sexual harassment, and alleging that the appellant’s actions both fit those descriptions, and that the CTSA itself provides legal basis for SimDemocracy to label actions which violate the Terms of Service as Terrorism. The respondent continues at some length to describe the actions of the appellant.
[8]. The respondent then alleges that the CTSA mandates immediate action in cases where SimDemocracy or its citizens may be placed at risk, and that any action short of those taken would have constituted negligence. This leads to the argument that the appellant’s request for due process is in fact being satisfied by this appeal, rather than a traditional court case.
[9]. The respondent then alleges that the CTSA summary ban procedure is a constitutionally sound procedure, that the Department of Justice correctly obtained judicial certification for the ban, and that the appellant’s appeal to equal protection before the law is not applicable as a result. They then go on to discuss at some length the distinction between equal protection and equal outcome.
[10]. The respondent continues to discuss what they view as being a key distinction between this and localclosetshitter’s case, namely that the SDBI was not “properly reported”, which in turn lead to that individual receiving a trial and subsequent plea deal. This is presumably meant to suggest that the SDBI’s typical response to comments such as those made by the appellant would be to exercise a CTSA summary ban, however it is not elaborated on.
[11]. The respondent next reinforces the obligation for the government to take action with regards to observed or reported crimes, and repeats that any action other than the one taken would have constituted negligence on the part of the Department of Justice.
[12]. The respondent then attempts to draw a parallel between the enforcement of a permanent ban as a maximum sentence applied by a court in SD v MrMises 2020 Crim 16, to the permanent summary ban. With this same reference, they also highlight that the victim in this case was additionally transgender, and thus denoted to be “at a heightened risk of harassment and abuse”.
[13]. The respondent closed with a collective assertion that the appellant did in fact perform misconduct, that any misconduct by the relevant Competent Authority responsible for enacting the ban has no bearing on this appeal, that the appellant was not deprived of due process, and that the appeal ought to be rejected.
Considerations
[14]. There is only one primary consideration which I believe must be addressed with regard to this appeal, that being the question; Was the appellant deprived of due process?
[15]. Thus, was the appellant deprived of due process?
- [15.1]. Article 18, Section 2.3 of the Constitution states:
§2.3. Under exceptional circumstances affecting public safety, a pre-emptive or summary mute or ban may be applied before a trial.
§2.3.1. After the issuing of such a suppression, a competent court must certify within forty-eight (48) hours that the pre-emptive ban is in accordance with this article. If such certification is not received, the person must be unbanned or unmuted.
- [15.2]. This article states unambiguously that when exceptional circumstances affect public safety, a pre-emptive or summary mute or ban may be applied only if done so as a measure conducted prior to a trial. Failure to file criminal proceedings after enacting a summary ban therefore constitutes a deprivation of the banned individual’s constitutional right to liberty and security of the person.
- [15.3]. It should go without saying that a trial and thus clear deliverance of due process is preferred over summary bans which are then later appealed. It is noted that the latter option deprives an individual of their right to be presumed innocent before proven guilty, due to failing to permit them a chance to defend themselves before a court of law as a presumed innocent party. Appeals therefore fail to constitute due process when serving as the only permitted response to a summary judgement.
Verdict
[16]. Due to the Department of Justice choosing to enact a summary ban of Panzzr, without subsequently endeavoring to proceed to a trial as required by the Constitution, this court finds that the Department of Justice did in fact deprive Panzzrr of his right to due process, and subsequently orders Panzzrr be unbanned immediately.
- [16.1]. Additionally, every user banned under the non-ECTPO procedures of the CTSA must also be notified of their being granted a full, standard trial, rather than an appeal, upon their request. After such a request is submitted, the Department of Justice shall have 48 hours to file a criminal complaint in accordance with the Courtroom Procedures Act, unless the statute of limitations for the crime have lapsed, at which point the user must simply be released.
[17]. Furthermore, elements of the ECTPO powers as currently outlined by the CTSA are unconstitutional, due to the nature of an appeal not equating to an original jurisdiction trial. In an original jurisdiction trial, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In an appeal following a summary ban, the banned user is presumed guilty, and thus forced to appeal against the ruling, shifting the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. This violates the constitutional right of anyone charged with a crime (the act of which is required in a summary ban procedure) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
[18]. This court finds the following elements of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act of 2023 to be incompatible with the Constitution, and thus struck down:
- [18.1] Article 1, Section 1.4
- [18.1.1] This section allows for police discrimination, by enabling involved officers to charge individuals either through normal procedure or with terrorism, which violates the right to equality before the law.
- [18.2] Article 5, Section 3
- [18.2.1] This section is in violation of Article 17, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states that “Every person charged with a criminal offense shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty.” Given that an appeal presumes the appellant to be guilty, and thus places the burden of proof on the appellant to prove their lack of guilt, an appeal cannot alone cannot provide for this provision.
- [18.3]. Article 8
- [18.3.1]. See [18.2.1].
[19]. Finally, as a further explanatory note regarding precedent to be set forward;
- [19.1]. Summary bans may only be enacted as a temporary measure to defend SimDemocracy, and must subsequently result in charges being brought forward against the summarily banned user, such that they may defend themselves before a court of law as a party presumed innocent until otherwise proven guilty, as per the provisions of the Constitution.
- [19.2]. Appeals alone do not themselves constitute due process. An appeal must not be the first opportunity for an individual to defend their innocence, as this creates an inverted priority whereby the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt falls on the appellant to prove their innocence, whereas the State needs only to prove reasonable doubt about the appellant’s innocence. In the case of a guilty verdict in a regular trial, an appeal can then (as it is not alone) serve to constitute due process, even under the above described inversion of priority, while still being compatible with the Constitution.
