View source for In re Mute of BelugaWhaleMan 2021 SDSC 5

[[Category:Case Law|2021-04-04]] [[Category:Supreme Court Cases|2021-04-04]] [[Category:Court Cases from 2021|2021-04-04]]
= In re Mute of BelugaWhaleMan 2021 SDSC 5=

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
|-
! Date of judgment
! 4th April 2021
|-
| Justices
| Chief Justice Ivy Cactus Justice Syndicality Justice Fermiboson
|-
| Held
| The mute was issued unlawfully.
|-
| Ruling
| 3-0
|-
| Applicable precedent
| If a person is muted without accepting their ticket, it is issued unlawfully, 5 Ticket mutes that are procedurally unlawful are unconstitutional, 5.1 Necessity is not a defense for violating ticket procedures, 6 Supervisors are members of the government, 7 Affirms ''SD v xMikee'' 2020 Crim 1
|}
====
====
== MAJORITY OPINION by Chief Justice Ivy Cactus==

''(with Justice Syndicality and Justice Fermiboson agreeing.)''
== Introduction ==

'''[1].''' The petitioner is seeking a review into a mute they received from the Discord Supervisor, Mobilfan. They allege that they did not accept the ticket, and therefore the mute was invalid under Article 5, Section 4a of the Ministries of State Act.
== Argumentation ==

'''[2].''' The petitioner makes a short case, opening by stating that they were not given a chance to accept their ticket, which they did not want to do because they did not believe a judge had accepted the ticket.

'''[3].''' They then produce a series of screenshots proving this situation, which include the Discord Supervisor stating they were “making a shortcut”, and stating they could “argue necessity”, which the petitioner attempts to counter by showing that the ticket was only 3 hours long, and therefore necessity is an invalid defense.

'''[4].''' The Respondent then summarily agrees with the petitioner on all points, going on to both claim the ticket was in of itself invalid and to distance the state from the mute, claiming the Discord Supervisor did it of their own volition.
== Was the Mute Illegal? ==

'''[5].''' Article 5, Section 4a of the Ministry of States Act very clearly states that “A citizen has a right to refuse a ticket, which will then send the crime to a criminal trial.”, the petitioner was muted before they accepted the ticket, and the mute was therefore illegal.

5.1 Due to this, the ticket was not issued lawfully, which means that it also violated Article 19, Section 2.4. of the Constitution, which only allows for “The lawful fine or muting after issuance of a lawful ticket”

'''[6].''' Necessity is a criminal defense, and due to the fact the Discord Supervisor isn’t being charged with a crime, it is irrelevant. The Constitution already gives means for summary bans in cases of egregious ToS violations, which would be the way for a necessary punishment to go through, a smut ticket clearly does not fall under this.

'''[7].''' To address the respondent’s arguments that “the state did not, in any instance, ask the Discord Supervisor to exercise his power, and therefore cannot be held liable for the actions of the DS.”. However, the Court disagrees. As established in SD v xMikee 2020 Crim 1 Supervisors are members of the government. The Discord Supervisor unlawfully muting someone is in essence no different than an officer doing so, and responsibility falls on the state equally for both of them.
== Verdict ==

'''[8].''' The mute was not accepted by the petitioner, and therefore both unlawful and unconstitutional.



==Citations==
<references />