SD v NotEmoJustDog 2025 Crim 2

SD v NotEmoJustDog 2025 Crim 2

Date of judgment	30th January 2025
Judge	Judge Britz
Charges	1 charge of Sexual Harassment (Article 54 of the Criminal Code)
Verdict	Guilty of 1 charge of Sexual Harassment
Sentence	1 year, 1 day ban
Applicable persuasive precedent	Mild provocation that the reasonable person would tolerate does not warrant sexually suggestive material being sent, or the threat to send sexual images, 3

Pretext

[1]. The accused, NotEmoJustDog, sent a series of messages in general, including an intent of “getting off” to another user, and their aim to send “dick pics” to the victim, silver/uranium. It was for the court to decide whether the messages were of “sexually suggestive” nature, and were sent without provocation, consent, or solicitation.

Opening statements

[2]. The court invited both the defence and prosecution to make their opening statements. The prosecution presented the case that the messages were originally “meant to evoke the image of them performing autosexual acts”, before this escalated to the accused suggesting they wanted to provide “indisputably sexually explicit material” in the form of “dick pics”. They also presented the argument that these messages were not solicited, with the victim initially interpreting “getting off” as a wish to leave the server. The defence presented their own statement, claiming that the messages were in fact not “sexually suggestive”, and they were indeed solicited.

Evidence cross examination

[2]. The prosecution claimed the messages were of sexually suggestive origin, whilst the defence recommended the court interpret them as bothersome. The defence countered the presentation of the message in which the accused intended to send “dick pics” by claiming it was meant to evoke anger, not sexual arousal in the victim, and was also provoked. Finally, the prosecution claimed the actions were not directly solicited by the victim, to which the defence did not object to. Next, the defence claimed the actions were provoked, due to the fact the accused mentioned their wish to “stop being pinged”, after which the victim deliberately continued to ping them. The defence then claimed the victim consented to these actions, responding “do it” in response to the accused’s suggestion of sending “dick pics”. However, the prosecution argued that the victim only wanted to annoy the accused by pinging them, and never consented to receiving sexually suggestive material in the form of messages from the accused. Finally, the defence further suggested the accused was provoked by sharing messages that called for their death, however, these messages were not sent by the victim and instead by another bystander. Thus, the court rules this information as irrelevant to the case.

Verdict

[3]. The court finds the accused, NotEmoJustDog, guilty of one count of Sexual Harassment under Article 54 of the criminal code. Thus, the court sentences NotEmoJustDog to the sentence of 1 ban and 1 day from the moment of arrest. In its judgement the court cites Article 54 §1 of the criminal code. Part of this states, “Whoever in an unsolicited manner sends or displays sexually suggestive material to another person without consent, including through text.” The court finds that the messages were undeniably sexually suggestive in nature, as “getting off” is a commonly known term that implies an autosexual act. The intent to send “dick pics” is also sexually suggestive, as it would involve sending images of a sexual organ to another person. The court does not believe the messages were consented to, as at no point did the victim explicitly state they were fine with the accused sending these messages, instead believing they were intending to leave the server. Furthermore, the defence’s argument that the accused was provoked is untrue, as the court finds that a reasonable person would not use the excuse of a ping on a discord server, where a ping is common practice, to justify escalating the conversation to the point they suggested sending “dick pics”.