SD v krystiancbarrie 2020 Crim 14
SD v krystiancbarrie 2020 Crim 14
| Date of judgment | 3th November 2020 |
|---|---|
| Judge | Chief Justice SeaOtter |
| Charges | 2 charges of Hate Speech (Article 72b of the Criminal Code) |
| Verdict | Guilty of 1 charge of Hate Speech Not Guilty of 1 charge of Hate Speech |
| Sentence | 1 week ban |
| Applicable persuasive precedent | Definitions of slurs must fit into the protected characteristics outlined by the Constitution, 4 Whether or not the victim is a member of the slurs targeted group is irrelevant, 7 Reaffirms SD v Schwifula 2020 Crim 6 6 An admission to a crime having accord may not be used to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt if there is no evidence that crime happened under SimDemocracy’s jurisdiction 10 |
==
JUDGMENT by Chief Justice SeaOtter
Introduction
[1]. The state is pursuing two charges of Hate Speech against the defendant, u/krystiancbarrie, also known as kguy, for comments allegedly made in the SimDemocracy Discord server.
Summary of the Charges
[2]. The first charge pursued by the state relates to a message sent in the SimDemocracy Discord server, in which the defendant refers to a user as a “retard.” The state claims this is an slur against a protected characteristic and therefore hate speech.
[3]. The second charge the state is pursuing is hate speech relating to the defendant alledgedly using the ethnic slur “gook.” The state claims this also falls under hate speech as a protected characteristic.
Defining the Slur (Charge 1\)
[4]. Towards the beginning of the trial, the court was asked to define “retard,” and did so to aid itself and both counselors. “Retard” is defined as such as it relates to protected characteristics and hate speech legislation.
4.1 The following were determined to be valid definitions of “retard.” (1) A holding back or slowing down, (2) a person affected with mental retardation or (3) a foolish or stupid person.
4.2 The court wishes to clarify this definition further, to the extent that it applies to Article 72b of the Criminal Code, which requires slurs to be related to a protected characteristic.
4.2.1 Protected characteristics are defined by Article 12 of the Constitution, “Protected characteristics shall include, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, national or social origin, ethnicity, age, disability, religion, and political beliefs.”
4.3 The following shall be the definition of “retard” as it relates to the disability characteristic: “an insult comparing a person to someone afflicted with mental retardation.”
Do the actions of the defendant fall under the definition?
[5]. In the first exhibit, the state presented that the defendant quoted another user who was saying “its almost like freedom of speech is meant to protect the government from oppressing you rather than the ability to say whatever you want.” The defendant pinged the author of that message, saying “retard.”
[6]. As such, the court must decide if the defendants actions fall under the definition established in 4.3. As the defendant responds to an argument with a slur, this falls under comparing the author to a person suffering from mental retardation. That is a protected characteristic and is therefore hate speech.
[7]. As ruled in SD v. Schwiftula 2020 Crim 6 6, even if the victim of the slur is not part of the group which the protected characteristic covers, the charge still applies.
Can Charge 2 be proven?
[8]. In relation to the second charge, the defense questioned where the crime took place, and posited that it may have been outside of SimDemocracy jurisdiction, as defined by the S.D.C. in Article 1\.
[9]. For context, the defendant quoted a user saying “You literally say ‘gook’ in response to seeing a Vietnamese person,” then said “yer, and i’m not fucking backing down either.”
[10]. Before we can discuss if this falls under hate speech, the court must decide if sufficient evidence has been produced to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime happened within SimDemocracy’s jurisdiction.
[11]. By the State’s own admission, it is unable to do so. In addition, the defense argued that despite the conversation above taking place in Discord, the court can not be sure that the actual crime occured in SimDemocracy.
[12]. As the State can not prove jurisdiction, charge 2 can not be proven.
Verdict
[13]. As the defendants actions in Charge 1 fall under Article 72b of the S.D.C, the court finds the defendant guilty of Charge 1 (Hate Speech).
[14]. As the jurisdiction can not be proven in Charge 2, the court finds the defendant not guilty of Charge 2 (Hate Speech).
[15]. The court sentences the defendant to a 1 week ban from SimDemocracy and its territories.
