SD v Kamray23 2020 Crim 5

SD v Kamray23 2020 Crim 5

Date of judgment	13th July 2020
Judge	Justice SlimmyJimmyGrimmy
Charges	1 charge of Spam (Article 43 of the Criminal Code)
Verdict	Guilty of 1 charge of Spam
Sentence	3 week mute
Applicable persuasive precedent	“Likely” is defined as the state in which something can be reasonably predicted, believed, or expected by a reasonable person, given the facts, without knowing the end results, 9 Likelihood is determined through a test based on the expectations of the reasonable person. It is not determined through a mathematical or scientific process, 9 and 10 Affirmed by In re 38th Presidential and 38th Senatorial Elections 2020 SDSC 10 39 The “reasonable person” is a fictional character that roughly represents the average SimDemocracy user, 10 Mathematical and scientific processes, theorems, and proofs, are not going to be taken into consideration by the reasonable person, and are therefore not used in reasonable person tests 10

JUDGMENT by Justice SlimmyJimmyGrimmy

[1]. The defendant, u/JuhaJGam3R (kamray23#0580), was charged by the Department of Justice with spam (the “continual stream of text or image based communication which would likely disrupt conversations and/or silence others”) on 06/24/2020. The prosecution alleges that the defendant made at least \~160 posts in 15 minute intervals in a short time. The prosecution argues that 13 subscribers left the subreddit because of the defendants actions.

[2]. The defendant argues that these posts do not match the definition of spam. The defendant presented a study he himself has made on the situation. The study argues that statistically, the defendant’s actions “did not affect post visibility or discussion under posts on r/SimDemocracy” and therefore did not “likely disrupt conversations and/or silence others.”

An Analysis of the Posts in Question

[3]. The defendant’s posts all take up a similar format to each other. Each utilises a seemingly random and nonsensical image, paired with a black border with a seemingly random caption and seemingly random reddit title. Said captions sometimes utilise invalad characters (seen here [1](https://www.reddit.com/r/SimDemocracy/comments/gxr90s/im_think_i_might_be_inected/)) that seem to be placeholders for text imputed that it couldn't render with the font. Near the end of the posts, said posts seem to endorse u/theghostecho for president, but are still random in nature, as they only utilise a few select phrases and continue with the nonsensical images. The courts can infer that the subject in question, u/theghostecho, would not have taken kindly to these posts. Although no evidence was presented of the subject dismissing the posts directly, the subject can be seen here: [2](https://www.reddit.com/r/SimDemocracy/comments/gx1731/the_story_star_wars_episode_vii_the_force/) complaining how the “random posts make no sense,” so it's reasonable to assume that this shift was incurred by suggestion of the subject, but by the defense’s own choice.

[4]. The court can infer beyond a doubt that given the observations, the perfect 15 minute intervals of the posts in questions, the sheer amount of posts in question, and the defendants programing knowhow (See the defendant’s github page posted as evidence), the process of creating and posting these posts utilize one or more bots/scripts. Said pool of phrases was seemingly modified to only have a few phrases involving u/theghostecho.

[5]. From these observations and the involvement of the study, the court finds that these posts serve little to no purpose other than to be content. Although the defendant claims these posts to be “abstract humor” (See here again: [3](https://www.reddit.com/r/SimDemocracy/comments/gx1731/the_story_star_wars_episode_vii_the_force/)) that does not serve as an exception for spam. Although, said posts turn political with the endorsements of u/theghostecho, it does not serve as an exception, as the posts also take up the same random, bot generated nature, so the court interprets these either to serve no purpose or to directly damage u/theghostecho’s campaign, however this trial is not to decide whether or not u/theghostecho’s campaign was damaged, so for the purpose of this case, the courts shall interpret the content as having no purpose.

The 13 Subscribers

[6]. The prosecution alleged that said posts resulted in a 13 member subscriber drop as seen here: [4](https://subredditstats.com/r/SimDemocracy) . The defense argued that the subreddit subscribers leaving cannot be proven to be a result of the posts. The court sides with the defense’s argument, as the subscriber drop, although it did happen, could be a result of a variety of different things. For example, the drop could have been the result of reddit banning 13 accounts. So the court concludes that said argument cannot be proven without reasonable doubt.

The Study

[7]. The defendant posted a study seen here: [5](https://drive.google.com/file/d/128NEzL-gB8M-5Sokj8HPBVpw7uHPesEt/view) that establishes that the posts minimally effects the scores and comments of r/SimDemocracy and therefore did not “disrupt conversations and/or silence others.” Although the court interprets the results of the study to be factual, the court finds problems with the study itself. The seven page study fails to address a number of variables. For example, the study makes no mention of whether the automod or the automatic likes on your own posts were included in the study. The court interprets the automod to be a forum of conversation with the poster, as it is merely an automatic bot.

[8]. The study also makes the assumption that disrupting others and silencing conversation only involves comments and likes. A major part of our reddit environment are the lurkers. These people usually don’t post or comment in our subreddit, but are just here to watch. A major part of a conversation or debate is being seen, which doesn’t necessarily involve a like or comment, just viewing it is fine. The study does incorporate the amount of views and comments, the study does not incorporate views of posts and comments and therefore is missing a vital part in finding whether or not people were silenced.

The Definition of Likely and Subjectivity

[9]. Midway through the trial, the court was asked to give their definition of “likely” and the court obliged. The definition was disputed by the defense throughout the rest of the trial. Although the court finds it reasonable to dispute the court’s definition even after the objection was overruled, as the definition was a major part of the case, the court still stands with its initial definition. The court definition is as follows: Likely: The state in which something can be reasonably predicted, believed, or expected by a reasonable person, given the facts, without knowing the end results.

9.1 The court believes that the definition of spam (the “continual stream of text or image based communication which would likely disrupt conversations and/or silence others”) is based on what could happen, rather than what happened, as the definition is in future tense, and can reasonably be predicted could happen, even if there isn’t more than a 50% chance of it happening.

9.2 The court likes to think about it like texting and driving. Depending on the situation, you might not cause harm and the chance that you will cause harm on that drive is less than 50%, however a reasonable person can see that by texting and driving, you are putting yourself and others at risk and are still committing a crime, regardless if you actually cause harm to anything or anyone and regardless if there was less than a 50% chance of it actually occurring, because a reasonable person can utilize common sense.

[10]. Reasonable people aren’t supposed to represent real people, but instead a broad, fictional, average person. In this case, it represents the average SimDemocracy user. Although the information scientists and philosophers might be reasonable due to their proofs and theories, they are too specific to represent a reasonable person.

[11]. Although the courts utilize objective truths when making decisions, the interpretation of law ultimately relies on being subjective and up to interpretation. There is no definition of how many posts it takes to make up spam, or DMs it takes to harass someone, or what is or isn’t an implied right. These are up to judges to use their best judgement to find out. This subjectivity does have a matter of opinion in it, as the same law can be interpreted differently as society progresses.

Conclusion

[12]. The court likes to think or reddit like a community pinboard. Anyone can post to this pinboard for the community to see and post their comments at any time. When the pinboard gets filled with junk, it naturally takes away attention from the other posts and people might not want to rummage their way just to find a few things they didn’t know they were looking for in the first place. It may be true that the same amount of people ended up pulling off tabs and making little comments, but that doesn't excuse the fact that it is obvious what the person posting all this junk is running the risk of turning off others, even if the results cannot be observed or observed not to have happened. Just like texting and driving, they run the risk of an accident, even if it didn't happen.

[13]. Although the court acknowledges that the posts could not have probably decreased subscriber counts or likes and comments, the court finds that due to the sheer amount of posts made within a small time frame that add little to no valuable content to SimDemocracy and can be reasonably predicted to have had a good chance of disrupt conversations and/or silence others, regardless if it happened or not.

[14]. The court finds u/JuhaJGam3R (kamray23#0580) guilty of spam and sentences them to a 3 week mute. This sentence may be appealed or paroled following standard procedures. The mute shall start whenever the defense can be subject to the punishment, earliest in 24 hours.