SD v Dickhead68 2019 Crim 5

SD v Dickhead68 2019 Crim 5

Date of judgment	6th October 2019
Judge	Judge Kate
Charges	1 charge of Harassment (Article I.B.5 of the Community Standards Amendment)
Verdict	Not guilty of 1 charge of Harassment
Sentence
Applicable persuasive precedent

JUDGMENT by Judge Kate

[1]. First of all, the defendant did in fact stop for 71 hours after being asked to stop. It does not prove it was not harassment, but rather shows the defendant did in fact listen to the victim’s request to stop messaging him. And then after the 71 hours have passed the defendant did not continue and instead wanted to talk with the victim. Clearly being mildly annoying is not equal to harassment, and it shouldn’t be treated as so. The point defense has raised that 71 hour time gap between the warning to stop and the defendant's next message is a long enough time gap to warrant this warning no longer being valid is valid, as no warning should be treated as definitive answer to stop. The correct course of action would be to mute or block the defendant on discord in order to prevent him from messaging the victim.

[2]. The message sent in evidence no. 2 i.e. ‘when you shut up thanks’ does indeed constitute a question to stop, and the defendant did indeed stop messaging the victim after it. While it is not a non-misunderstandable request, it did in fact make the defendant stop messaging the victim, which does show that the defendant is able to cease messaging the victim.

[3]. In the defense evidence no.11 we can see that there is no evidence showing victim asking the defendant to stop messaging before the incident in evidence 4 and 5\. Since the defendant has stopped after being asked, where he has sent only a single message in response which is completely reasonable, we can in fact determine he has ceased messaging the victim on reddit.

[4]. The fact that the reddit messages shown in evidence 4 and 5 were a response to the victim insulting the defendant is also proof that the defendant did not in fact aim to harass the victim, but rather to answer an attack on himself.

[5]. It is understandable that the victim would not like to be messaged by the defendant, however the fact that the victim did have a civil conversation with the defendant could be seen as lifting the warning to stop messaging him.

[6]. As I have said, harassment is not equal to being annoying. The correct course of action is to mute or block the person, and since none of the messages were in /r/SimDemocracy territories or outside of DMs, a block or mute would have clearly sufficed, which would not be the case if the defendant used other platforms than the DMs.

[7]. In conclusion, I declare dickhead not guilty of harassment.