SD v thelovedone9 2025 Crim 4
SD v thelovedone9 2025 Crim 4[1]
| Date of judgment | 2nd February 2025 |
|---|---|
| Judge | Judge Average787Enjoyer |
| Charges | 1 charge of 1st degree Hate Speech (article 53a of the Criminal Code) |
| Verdict | Guilty of 1 charge of 1st degree Hate Speech |
| Sentence | 3 month, 1 day ban starting from the date of arrest |
| Applicable persuasive precedent | Speech which is likely to be interpreted by a reasonable person as demeaning and upsetting towards a protected group can be considered hate speech ,4 A reasonable implication of a message can be presumed if there is no way to establish the intentions of the sender, 5 |
JUDGMENT by Judge Average787enjoyer
Pretext
[1]. The accused, thelovedone9, sent a series of messages on Jan. 23 2025 including “Atheist=Human.” The operative question concerning the case was that whether or not this statement, given the potential implications it poses, constitutes hate speech.=
[2]. The prosecution’s argument was that given the context, specifically the defendant’s statement that “From now…they will start…respecting other people,” the defendant had, in fact, implied that non-atheists are non-human, thereby violating article 53a of the criminal code.
[3]. The defense’s argument was that because the statement “Atheist=Human” when read denotatively is simply a statement that atheists are humans, reaffirming human dignity, it should not fall under article 53a.=
Verdict
[4]. The court finds that despite the message in question not being aimed at a specific group of people, it was still likely to be interpreted by a reasonable person as demeaning and upsetting towards people of faith.
[5]. The court finds that because there existed no way to establish concrete intention behind the message in question, a reasonable implication of the message may be taken into account, in this case that the accused intended to imply that people of faith are not human. Furthermore, because the defendant later said that they would “start…respecting other people,” the defendant had intended to demean a protected characteristic (religion) of people of faith.
[6]. The court finds the defendant guilty of 1 charge of 1st degree hate speech and sentences them to a 3 month, 1 day ban beginning at the date of arrest, as they later expressed remorse for their actions and intent to not repeat them, through saying that they would “start…respecting other people”.
Citations
- ↑ Originally crim 8
