SD v Mooklyn 2021 Crim 4

SD v Mooklyn 2021 Crim 4

Date of judgment	31st January 2021
Judge	Justice Syndicality
Charges	7 charges of Hate Speech (Article 72b of the Criminal Code) 1 charge of Content Glorifying Self-Harm (Article 73 of the Criminal Code)
Verdict	Guilty of 5 charges of Hate Speech Guilty of 1 charge of Content Glorifying Self-Harm Not guilty of 2 charges of Hate Speech
Sentence	2 year and 9 month ban
Applicable persuasive precedent	Intent does not absolve guilt but can factor into sentencing, 18, 21 Committing crimes in jest is not a defense, 12 Reaffirms SD v JosephMemestar 2020 Crim 9 2.1

Introduction

[1]. The Defendant is charged with seven counts of Hate Speech for various comments about LGBTQ and plural people that could be construed to be upsetting or demeaning, as well as a comment to a Danish user that could be considered insulting. The Defendant is also charged with one count of Content Glorifying Self-Harm for comments that could be construed as suggesting LGBTQ people use electricity to “cure” themselves of their sexuality. The total recommended ban length is two years and nine months.

[2]. The Defendant has pleaded guilty to the sixth count of Hate Speech, and not guilty to all other charges.

[3]. Two of the seven counts were thrown out during pre-trial. The first, regarding an incident in which the Defendant very clearly and openly derided plurality as a “mental illness,” was thrown out because plurality was not a protected characteristic at the time. The second, regarding more potentially hateful comments, was thrown out because the comments could not be reasonably seen as hateful.

On the Guilty Plea

[4]. As the Defendant has already pleaded guilty to one of the seven counts of Hate Speech, they shall be sentenced to the full recommended ban length. In this case, that is a one year ban.

On the First Hate Speech Charge

[5]. For this charge, the prosecution presented evidence of the Defendant talking of a “cool statistic about sex offenders,” one that was in a similar vein to the classic “FBI crime statistic” about African-Americans and the perception that they commit more crimes than white people despite there being less of them. The prosecution argues that this “cool statistic” was a falsehood and that the Defendant’s only intent for sharing it was to upset gay people. The defense argues that a mere statistic cannot be harmful or hateful.

[6]. The Court agrees with the prosecution. I find it difficult to fathom why the Defendant would bring such a statistic into a conversation without meaning it as some sort of dog whistle. Additionally, false statistics and false information can be very harmful. For example, going back to that “FBI crime statistic,” there have been multiple instances in which people with malicious intentions shared the statistic around to promote a negative perception of African-Americans, one that assumes that the vast majority are drug-dealers, murderers, or general ne’er-do-wells. Information such as this can be used to mislead people into taking falsehoods as facts, and therefore is capable of causing tremendous harm. It’s easy to see why the prosecution argues that the “statistic” is upsetting because of this, and it absolutely can be considered upsetting.

[7]. Therefore, the actions taken by the Defendant in the evidence shown qualify as Hate Speech. This “statistic” can easily be seen as upsetting or demeaning, as it is meant to communicate the message that homosexuals are sex offenders, which is simply not true, and certainly is offensive.

On the Second Hate Speech Charge

[8]. For this charge, the prosecution presented evidence showing the Defendant speaking about “LGBTQ safe zones” in Poland. In the evidence, the Defendant states the purpose of such “safe zones” is for heterosexual people to be “safe from the gays,” and also says that “Poland isn’t doing anything wrong.” The prosecution presented more evidence of other, similar statements, saying that “Poland is the only moral country left in the world,” and that the world would be a better place if there were “safe zones” everywhere. The prosecution argues that the Defendant is implying that LGBTQ people are dangerous. The defense argues that the statements are not nearly as bad as the prosecution tries to present them, and that the Defendant is not actually defending Poland’s actions.

[9]. The Court agrees with the prosecution. It is true that, if one were to only look at the first piece of evidence for this charge, then it could be argued that the defendant was only speaking about the purpose of the “safe zones,” although it wouldn’t be the easiest thing to do. However, the additional evidence provided quite clearly shows that the Defendant is in support of the existence of such “safe zones” and wants to see more of them. And it’s also clear from the evidence provided that the Defendant doesn’t want the “safe zones” as a place for LGBTQ people to be actually safe, as the defense tries to argue, but instead wants them as a way to keep the “untouchables” away, because LGBTQ people are dangerous and need to be contained. Of course, LGBTQ people are not inherently dangerous by virtue of being LGBTQ , but the fact that the Defendant seems to imply that they are qualifies as being upsetting or demeaning.

[10]. Therefore, the actions taken by the Defendant in the evidence shown qualify as Hate Speech.

On the Fourth Hate Speech Charge

[11]. For this charge, the prosecution provides evidence showing the Defendant claiming that they saw a lesbian and calling it “saddening.” They also provide evidence of the Defendant commenting that it was the “3rd time this week” that this happened, and that there “seems sic to be way more than usual.” The prosecution argues that this, once again, is hateful because of the use of the term “saddening” to describe their sight of a lesbian in public. The defense argues that the statement was a joke and could not be seen as hateful.

[12]. This one isn’t as obnoxiously clear as the previous two charges. At first glance, the statement may not seem all that bad for some. Maybe it’s a little questionable, sure, but certainly not criminal. Except, it is. To start, there is no evidence that shows that the Defendant was joking. However, that is ultimately not relevant as saying “dude, I was joking, I didn’t mean it, trust me” isn’t a defense, per /r/SimDemocracy v. JosephMemestar 2020 Crim 9\. On the other hand, there isn’t a scenario like the previous charge in which the Defendant implies that lesbians need to be put away and isolated from the rest of society. But this is not relevant either. What matters is the statement, and the Defendant clearly stated that they feel that when they saw a lesbian outside, it was “saddening.” Some people may not find this upsetting. But a lesbian user may read this comment and think “why does this person think people like me are upsetting?”, and then get upset. And that’s what’s important.

[13]. Therefore, the actions taken by the Defendant in the evidence shown qualify as Hate Speech. Some may not see it that way, but the fact remains that the Defendant called lesbians “upsetting,” which can itself be seen, ironically enough, as an upsetting comment about lesbians.

On the Fifth Hate Speech Charge

[14]. For this charge, the prosecution provides evidence showing multiple occasions in which the Defendant states that they do not prefer to be around gay people and that gay people make their sexuality their entire personality, as well as one instance when the Defendant claims that someone “causes them intense fear due to their sodomy.” The prosecution argues that all of these instances can be construed as upsetting. The defense argues that these are the Defendant’s personal opinions, or jokes.

[15]. Once again, I’d like to start by saying that joking is not a defense. I’m not going to restate why. Anyway, this Court agrees with the prosecution.

15.1 For the “sodomy” instance, the prosecution makes the case that, although it may not be upsetting to the person the Defendant is joking with, it may be upsetting to others, which by itself makes the statement criminal, citing /r/SimDemocracy v. /u/MrMises 2020 Crim 16\. This court is inclined to agree. Nowhere in Article 72b of the Criminal Code does it state that comments need to be directly upsetting to the person they are targeted at in order to qualify as hate speech. If such comments are upsetting to anyone, which comparing sodomy to homosexuality can be, that is enough to be criminal.

15.2 For the instances in which the Defendant says they don’t like being around gay people, those can be seen as upsetting as well. In essence, the Defendant is implying that they don’t like being around LGBTQ people due to the simple fact that they are LGBTQ . This is not a political statement. The status of sexual minorities in society should in no way be seen as political. This is as if someone said that they didn’t like being around black people due to the simple fact that they are black. Most people would see this as racist and upsetting. Why should the same principle not apply here? Of course, the Defendant is free to choose not to be around gay people; that in itself is not a crime, but the fact that the Defendant openly spoke about their dislike for gay people is what counts as criminal here.

15.3 For the instances involving stereotypes, these can be seen as degrading, and therefore upsetting. As the prosecution points out, the Defendant is effectively saying that LGBTQ people have no personality, which is obviously an upsetting and demeaning comment. I find it impossible to get any impression that the Defendant was acting in a joking manner.

[16]. Therefore, the actions taken by the Defendant in the evidence shown qualify as Hate Speech.

On the Content Glorifying Self-Harm Charge

[17]. For this final charge, the prosecution provides evidence of a conversation occurring between the Defendant and another user. In it, the Defendant declares that “homo is a severe mental disability.” The other user asks if there is any cure, to which the Defendant replies “electricity,” further elaborating on how electricity could be employed to “cure” someone of their “disability,” going as far to say that a car battery or even a lightning rod would be effective, before settling on the general requirement of “5000 volts or above.” The prosecution argues that the statements said by the Defendant very clearly show that they are glorifying self-harm, or at the very least promoting it. The defense argues that the Defendant may not have known the effectiveness of their proposed treatment, and that they may not have known that electricity would have been harmful in this circumstance.

[18]. In scenarios such as these, where there are two dueling explanations for the events that transpired, but nothing in particular that shows the Defendant’s true intent or motive for their actions, I like to turn to Occam’s razor. It is a philosophical rule that posits that, in scenarios like the one here, the simplest explanation is usually the right one. The prosecution’s explanation is that the Defendant knew what they were doing and knew that using electricity as a “treatment” would harm those who did it. The defense’s explanation is that the Defendant didn’t know this. This Court is inclined to believe that, using Occam’s razor, the prosecution’s explanation is more likely to be true. But regardless of what the Defendant was thinking, it should be clear that most people would interpret what they were saying as the advocacy of doing something harmful to oneself as a “cure” for a “mental disability.” That is the textbook definition of “promoting self-harm,” which, although it is not glorifying self-harm, is still criminalized under the same article.

[19]. Therefore, the actions taken by the Defendant in the evidence shown qualify as Content Glorifying Self-Harm.

Verdict

[20]. The Court finds the Defendant guilty of all charges, except, of course, for the ones thrown out during the pre-trial.

[21]. The Court sentences the Defendant to a two-month ban for the first Hate Speech charge, a six-month ban for the second, a three-month ban for the fourth, and a six-month ban for the fifth. Additionally, the Court sentences the Defendant to a six-month ban for the Content Glorifying Self-Harm charge, as self-harm is something that should be taken very seriously, especially when someone is effectively advocating it as a cure for what they believe to be a “severe mental disability,” when in reality this “disability” is the case of people not conforming to their personal beliefs, as they have no requirement to do. Therefore the Defendant shall receive the maximum ban length for this charge.

[22]. Adding these sentences together, and adding to that the one-year ban for the sixth Hate Speech charge, which the Defendant pleaded guilty to, and the total ban length is two years and nine months.

[23]. This sentence shall take effect immediately.