SD v changebac 2025 Crim 24

SD v changebac 2025 Crim 24

Date of judgment	15th March 2025
Judge	Judge Average787enjoyer
Charges	1 charge of Harassment (Article 53) 1 charge of 1st Degree Hate Speech (Article 53a) 1 charge of Terms of Service Violation (Article 61)
Verdict	Guilty of 1 charge of First Degree Harassment (12 months) Not Guilty of 1 charge of First Degree Hate Speech Guilty of 1 charge of Terms of Service Violation (Permanent)
Sentence	Permanent + 12 month ban
Applicable persuasive precedent	Typographical errors can be considered reckless disregard as to whether one’s actions could cause apprehension, [3] A charge of ToS violation need not specify the specific ToS violation and may cite any given part of the ToS throughout the trial, [7]

JUDGMENT by Judge Average787enjoyer

Facts of the Trial

[1] The Prosecution provided evidence of of the defendant telling another user to “Reach speed limit and drive into a pole,” to “Press a gun to [another user’s] mouth,” and to “Get into the oven”

[2] The Defense argued that the defendant made a “typographical error” in sending the message telling another user to press a gun to their mouth, that the defendant violated a different portion of the Terms of Service than argued by the prosecution, and that the comment concerning the oven was unrelated to the holocaust, but rather to undercooked potatoes

On the count of Harassment

[3] The court categorically rejects the defense’s argument that the gun/mouth comment was a typographical error, as according to Art. 2 §2 of the Criminal Code, the burden of proof is on the defense to prove that, which they did not, and that allowing that sort of typographical error falls under reckless disregard pursuant to Article 53 §1.2 of the Criminal Code

[4] The court finds that asking someone to kill one’s self could be reasonably interpreted in a manner that provokes undue or unjustifiable apprehension and that the defendant is therefore guilty of one count of first degree harassment, and sentences them to a 12 month ban for that count

On the count of Hate Speech

[5] The court notes that the prosecution provided no proof as to a relation between the phrase “get in the oven” and the holocaust, and further that a relation between the two is not immediately obvious to a reasonable person, although the defense’s reference to cooking potatoes could best be characterized as “dubious.”

[6] Therefore, the court finds that the defendant is not guilty of one count of first degree hate speech

On the count of Terms of Service violation

[7] The court rejects the defense’s argument that the prosecution may not cite multiple portions of the Terms of Service in its argumentation

[8] The court finds that the defendant’s actions violate the Terms of Service

[9] The court finds the defense guilty of 1 count of Terms of Service violation and sentences them to a permanent ban for that count