SD v MrCynical6 2019 Crim 6

SD v MrCynical6 2019 Crim 6

Date of judgment	15th 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	Committing a crime in jest is a partial defence under common law, 1 Partially overturns SD v NovaSM 2019 Crim 3

JUDGMENT by Judge Kate

[1]. The defendant has only pinged the victim twice, in a short period of time. Other harassment cases, as pointed out by the defense, have been long term harassment, whereas the defense in this case has only been ‘harassing’ the victim in a span of three minutes. It is also true that the messages regarding the victim has been done in a joking manner. While committing a crime in jest is still illegal, it is an extenuation for the defendant.

[2]. It is true that after being asked to stop, the defendant ceased the alleged harassment.

[3]. It is reasonable however for the victim to press charges against the only person who has been pinging the victim as we can see in the evidence.

[4]. While it is true that the Constitution of r/SimDemocracy guarantees all citizens freedom of speech, as the state itself has to follow the discord or reddit content policy in order to guarantee the safety of the State. The alleged harassment has taken place on Discord, which in it’s content policy states that harassment is not allowed, and therefore the Community Standards Amendment I.B.5. Only adopts the Discord content policy, and therefore it is not unconstitutional.

[5]. Harassment in a public forum is however prosecutable, since in order to guarantee the safety of the State, the law enforcement of SimDemocracy has to also enforce the Discord content policy, which applies to public channels. Henceforth this argument of the defense is rejected.

[6]. Therefore, the defendant is declared not guilty of harassment.