SD v Kadyisme 2025 Crim 5

SD v Kadyisme 2025 Crim 5

Date of judgment	15th February 2025
Judge	Judge Average787enjoyer
Charges	1 charge of 1st Degree Hate Speech 5 counts of 2nd degree hate speech 1 count of spamming 6 counts of Terms of Service violations
Verdict	Guilty of 1 charge of First Degree Hate Speech Guilty of 5 charges of Second Degree Hate Speech Not guilty of 6 charges of Terms of Service violations Guilty of 1 charge of spamming
Sentence	16 month, 1 week ban
Applicable persuasive precedent	Hate speech not directed at a single individual may still be hate speech ,10 Reaffirms SD v MrMises 2020 Crim 16 11,12 The phrase “I HATE” followed by a protected group should be rebuttably presumed to be upsetting, demeaning, or humiliating towards that protected group, 13 The defendant’s own protected classes are immaterial to establishing criminal liability under article 53, 14 Messages which have effectively and repeatedly disrupted daily activities in SimDemocracy of no genuine content should be rebuttably presumed to have been made for that purpose, 18

Preface

[1]. The defendant was charged with 6 counts of hate speech, 1 count of spamming, and 6 counts of Terms of Service violations. The Terms of Service violations were based on the same messages as the Hate Speech charges.

[2]. The first count of hate speech was based on a message calling for violence against cisgender people in general. The prosecution argued that the shooter test established in SD vs. MrMises 2020 Crim 16 applied, as the hate speech was not directed at a single individual but was likely to ‘hit someone.’

[3]. The counts of second degree hate speech were based on messages containing slurs against people of caucasian heritage, and the defendant explicitly expressing a general hatred for both men and white people.

[4]. The count of spamming was based on Wick logs showing use of excessive blacklisted words.

[5]. The defense argued against the count of 1st Degree Hate Speech that the prosecution did not show intent to cause apprehension, and that the context showed messages encouraging violence against other, unprotected groups.

[6]. Against the counts of 2nd Degree Hate Speech, the defense argued first that hate speech could not be effectively prosecuted without context, second that the message “I hate cissies” may have been made under emotional stress and were impulsive decisions, and third that the identity of the defendant does matter, which they admitted was contrary to precedent.

[7]. Against the counts of Terms of Service violations, the defense argued that the messages made by the defendant were satire and impulsive, and that the hateful conduct policy explainer provides a carveout for satire.

[8]. Against the count of spamming, the defense argued that the purpose was not to annoy or to obstruct daily activity, but instead to collect “wick points”.

On the count of 1st Degree Hate Speech

[9]. The court rejects the argument that the fact that the defendant had previously called for violence against an unprotected group excuses later calls for violence against a protected group in the same conversation.

[10]. The court upholds the “shooter test” established in SD v MrMises 2020 Crim 16, which suggests that reckless hate speech directed at no specific individual is still hate speech under the Criminal Code and Article 53a §5 of the Criminal Code, which states that the fact that the speech was not directed towards any specific individual or group is immaterial to establishing criminal liability under the article.

[11]. The court notes that Article 53a §1.2 includes reckless disregard for whether a defendant’s intentions would cause apprehension.

[12]. The court finds the defendant guilty of one count of First Degree Hate Speech and sentences the defendant to a 6 month ban.

On the counts of 2nd Degree Hate Speech

[13]. The court finds that the phrase “I HATE” followed by a term used to refer to a protected class should rebuttably be considered upsetting, demeaning, or humiliating towards that protected class.

[14]. The court finds that the defendant’s own protected classes are immaterial to establishing criminal liability.

[15]. The court finds the defendant guilty of five counts of Second Degree Hate Speech and sentences the defendant to a 2 month ban for each count, to be served consecutively.

On the counts of Terms of Service violations

[16]. The court notes that only one crime may be charged for a given fact of the case according to Article 3, §2 of the Criminal Code.

[17]. The court finds the defendant not guilty of 6 counts of terms of service violations.

On the count of spamming

[18]. The court finds that messages which have effectively and repeatedly disrupted daily activities in SimDemocracy of no genuine content should be rebuttably presumed to have been made for that purpose.

[19]. The court finds that because of the frequency of the Wick messages, the messages made by the defendant disrupted daily activities in SimDemocracy.

[20]. The court finds the defendant guilty of one count of Spamming and sentences them to a ban of 1 week.