View source for SD v changebac 2025 Crim 24

[[Category:Case Law|2025-03-15]] [[Category:Criminal Cases|2025-03-15]] [[Category:Court Cases from 2025|2025-03-15]]
[[Category: Case Law Concerning Hate Speech]]
= SD v changebac 2025 Crim 24=
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left;"
|-
! Date of judgment
! 15th March 2025
|-
| Judge
| Judge Average787enjoyer
|-
| [https://docs.google.com/document/d/13oREW87NBb3yw93BolWiR3vLhG62v7HSHwyb8Q7icA8/edit?tab=t.0 Charges]
| 
* 1 charge of Harassment ([[Criminal_Code_2020#Article_53._Harassment|Article 53]])
* 1 charge of 1st Degree Hate Speech ([[Criminal_Code_2020#Article_53a._Hate_Speech|Article 53a]])
* 1 charge of Terms of Service Violation ([[Criminal_Code_2020#Article_61_%E2%80%94_Terms_of_Service_Violation|Article 61]])
|-
| [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BsDT3Hj7ZHsY0enBVk0tRJCj7WEuuln6SqtvVFCnXeg/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6gpyj8xw612c 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 [[Criminal_Code_2020#Article_2._Burden_of_Proof|Art. 2 §2]] of the [[Criminal Code 2020|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 [[Criminal_Code_2020#Article_53._Harassment|Article 53 §1.2]] of the [[Criminal Code 2020|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