View source for Mobilfan v Dickhead68 2020 Civ 3

[[Category:Case Law|2020-06-03]] [[Category:Civil Cases|2020-06-03]] [[Category:Court Cases from 2020|2020-06-03]]
= Mobilfan v Dickhead68 2020 Civ 3=

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
|-
! Date of judgment
! 3rd June 2020
|-
| Judge
| Judge Ivy Cactus
|-
| Grounds
| Defamation (Defamation Act) Civil harassment (common law)
|-
| Verdict
| D held not liable for defamation D held not liable for civil harassment
|-
| Result
| 
|-
| Applicable persuasive precedent
| Implicit requests to cease harassment are just as legally valid as explicit requests, 15.3 Civil Harassment is to be defined as “the repeated and unwanted bothering, threatening or anything along those lines by one or more users to one or more users even after being asked to stopped.”, 13.1 Reaffirms ''NovaSM v Dickhead68'' 2019 Civ 1 Overturns ''Dodowarrior44 v FruitRollUp'' 2020 Civ 2
|}
== JUDGMENT by Judge Ivy Cactus==
== Taking the case ==

'''[1].''' The court had the option whether or not to take this case at it’s beginning. There isn’t much to say about this decision, there were obviously arguments for both sides and it was clearly a debatable issue.
== Alts ==

'''[2].''' This argument came up later on in this case, in plaintiff's evidence no. 2 and no. 3\. However, due to it’s important nature on the rest of the case. I’ve decided to comment on it first.

'''[3].''' Evidence number 2 shows how an accountant very similarly named to the defendants also modded the exact same position on nordichhistorymemes, and also followed the same discussion patterns as all other Dickhead accounts.

'''[4].''' Evidence number 3 shows proof that all former accounts of the defendant had been banned on all of his previous accounts. The clear implication is that this is the reason the defendant would be using different accounts each time. This shows clear reasoning for more accounts being used.

'''[5].''' Throughout the presenting of all of this evidence the defendant didn’t once respond to any of this evidence. The only interpretations of this that could be made is that the defense agrees with the plaintiff or that they simply don’t feel the need to comment. Either way this should be noted as having an effect on the court’s decision, although not a very big one.

'''[6].''' It’s important to note that the court believes that none of this evidence would hold up in criminal court, where evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is needed. This is often interpreted by both the SDBI and court as confirmation from the main account. However, in civil hearings, the burden of proof is much lower, with the plaintiff only needing a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the evidence shows something is more likely than not.

'''[7].''' The court believes that evidence of all of the dickhead accounts being one in the same is strong. There’s clear behavioral patterns, the same remarks about being Mobil’s sex slave, and also the motive of all other accounts being banned which would force the defendant to use new accounts. Due to this; the court rules that all dickhead accounts presented in evidence in this hearing are to be treated as one person.
== Arguments — Past Harassment<ref>The judge did these phrases, such as “Past Harassment” as subheadings. This document will edit the headings as “Arguments — Subheading”.</ref> ==

'''[8].''' Throughout the hearing the plaintiff argues that the defendant has a pattern of poor behavior. We’ll be tackling this argument first mainly because it’s the one I have to think about the least.

8.1 The first argument of this caliber made by the plaintiff was that historically his client was in the right. He claims that due to the defendant being found guilty of harassment before he must be responsible for harassment this time.

8.1.1 The court absolutely rejects this argument. First of all, character evidence has no place in the courtroom. Someone being mean in the past doesn’t make them more responsible. On top of this, the plaintiff being in the right in the past certainly doesn’t make the defendant in the wrong.

8.2 The plaintiff also argued that due to the plaintiff accusing the defendant of harassment in the past, in a case where the defendant was found not guilty.

8.2.1 This argument baffles me. I’m not sure how the defendant being not guilty of harassing the plaintiff in the past helps prove that the defendant did this time. It actually leads to the opposite belief. However, I, being a good noodle, will not allow this to affect my decision, for the same reasons as outlined in 8.1.1.

8.3 This argument comes up again in plaintiff’s evidence no. 4\. It is similarly rejected there. For the same reasons as stated above.
== Arguments — States Duty ==

'''[9].''' The plaintiff makes the one off argument that by not banning the defendant’s alts already the state is at fault. As already out lined in 6 this would probably not be possible. Beyond this, however, it’s simply irrelevant. The state has not gone to hearing over this and the court will not find the defendant responsible because the state hasn’t banned him. Also, the court is not tired of hearing cases about him, we really don’t have much to do.
== Arguments — Defamation ==

'''[10].''' I think that the first important thing to do is list the criteria for defamation, all of which need to be fulfilled for defamation to have occurred.

10.1 Knowingly lie about the plaintiff;

10.2 Intend to injure the plaintiff;

10.3 Not be joking; unless you are joking with malicious intent;

10.4 Not be a political criticism;

10.5 Damage has to be done to the plaintiff;

'''[11].''' Now let's go down each criteria and see if it’s fulfilled

11.1 The first and easiest one to tackle is 10.4 the defense didn’t even raise this and the plaintiff didn’t mention it. Statements about being in someones rape dungeon don’t relate to simdemocracy politics in anyway.

11.2 Next we’ll tackle 10.1, this wasn’t mentioned by either party in the case either. I think we’ll all agree that it’s more likely that Mobil isn’t keeping Dickhead in a rape dungeon than that he is. So this criteria is also fulfilled.

11.3 Next we’ll tackle 10.2 and 10.3 simultaneously, because they kind of lead into each other.

11.3.1 First we’ll handle if they were jokes. On the plaintiff’s side we have evidence no.4, which is a meme which contains the statement “mobil is holding me in a rape cell i’m not joking (and stuff)”. This statement is clearly in lime with the absurdist type of humor in the rest of the meme, so I don’t find this argument to be very persuasive. The plaintiff also asks “Is it still a joke if it’s repeated 4 times in 26 minutes”, something doesn’t stop being a joke because it’s repeated to the point that it isn’t funny.

11.3.2 On the defenses side we have that it was communicated through a meme, seen in evidence no.4 once again, rape victims aren’t very likely to communicate their ongoing rape through a meme, Defense evidence no.1 also shows the defendant claiming they were joking. Due to the plaintiff not really providing strong evidence that they weren’t jokes and the way they were communicated, on top of the defenses’ own statements I’m siding with the defense here.

11.3.3 Of course that’s not the only part of this. We also have to determine whether or not these jokes were said maliciously and with intent to harm. I don’t really like assuming what was going through someone's head when they did an action, but the defamation laws kind of forces me to. Frankly there really isn’t good evidence from the plaintiff or defendant on this point. We have the defendant’s word that he didn’t mean to defame, and we have the fact that he repeatedly said it I suppose. The only argument that I found very persuasive was the fact that if the defendant really meant to injure the plaintiff he wouldn’t have made such a far fetched claim. Due to this I think it’s not very likely the statements were made with the intent to defame the plaintiff.

11.4 10.5 is irrelevant at this point because the previous criteria isn’t fulfilled.

'''[12].''' Due to the above the court finds the defendant Not Responsible for defamation.
== Arguments — Harassment ==

'''[13].''' Throughout the hearing there was the question of whether we would be using the criminal definition of harassment. In short, no. There’s no precedent for that, whereas there is precedent for the civil definition to be used. This is not legally binding, but it is persuasive and I see no reason to stray from it.

13.1 For reference the civil definition for harassment is “the repeated and unwanted bothering, threatening or anything along those lines by one or more users to one or more users even after being asked to stopped.”.

'''[14].''' Now let us once again define every part necessary for harassment to have happened.

14.1 Must be a repeated action;

14.2 Must bother or threaten the plaintiff;

14.3 The action must continue after the defendant is asked to stop;

'''[15].''' Let’s once again cover each point and see if the criteria is met.

15.1 Let’s start with 14.1 in the plaintiff’s evidence no.1 and evidence no.4 we see that the defendant claimed the plaintiff was keeping him in his rape cell at least 8 times. I’m not even going to bother going over this, that’s repeated.

15.2 Next I’ll hit 14.2, The plaintiff is obviously bothered, going through the effort to file a civil hearing, which is likely enough to me. The defense also stated that the defendant’s actions were probably harassing the plaintiff. Due to both sides agreeing on this point and the actions of the plaintiff it’s easy to say that this criteria was filled.

15.3 Finally, 14.3. I think I’ll start by mentioning what I believe falls under “asking the defendant to stop”. I believe that asking the defendant to stop explicitly falls under this, but implicit actions such as filing harassment charges should also fall, under the definition. In the evidence we never once see the plaintiff asking the defendant to stop, meaning an explicit request wasn’t made. Now given my earlier statements checking the timing of the evidence is also important. All of the evidence on the plaintiff’s side was from at least a day before the civil hearing request was filed, meaning an implicit request to cease actions was never given. Due to this the criteria for 14.3 was never fulfilled.

'''[16].''' Due to the above the court finds the defendant not responsible for harrassment.
== Summary<ref>Paragraph numbering retrospectively added henceforth.</ref> ==

'''[17].''' The case was taken because it had merit.
The alts were tied close enough together for them to be treated as the same person in this hearing
Pattern of behavior isn’t relevant in this case
The state failing to do anything about the defendant in the past isn’t relevant.
The defendant isn’t responsible for defamation because he lacked intent to defame with his jokes
The defendant isn't responsible for harassment because the plaintiff never asked him to cease his behavior.
== Verdict ==

'''[18].''' The court finds that the defendant is not responsible on both of the accusations.


==Citations==
<references />