View source for SD v long hair boi 2021 Crim 6

[[Category:Case Law|2021-02-08]]
[[Category: Case Law Concerning Hate Speech]]
[[Category:Criminal Cases|2021-02-08]] [[Category:Court Cases from 2021|2021-02-08]]
= SD v long hair boi 2021 Crim 6=

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
|-
! Date of judgment
! 8th February 2021
|-
| Judge
| Justice Syndicality
|-
| Charges
| 1 charge of Hate Speech (Article 72b of the Criminal Code)
|-
| Verdict
| Guilty of 1 charge of Hate Speech
|-
| Sentence
| 1 year ban
|-
| Applicable persuasive precedent
| Direct messages can be used to prove the commission of a crime without the consent of the parties involved, 4.2 Intent does not absolve guilt but can factor into sentencing, 10 Reaffirms ''SD v Mooklyn'' 2021 Crim 4 18, 21
|}
== JUDGMENT by Justice Syndicality==
== Introduction ==

'''[1].''' The Defendant is charged with one count of Hate Speech for allegedly direct-messaging hateful comments about the LGBTQ  community to another user. The recommended punishment is a one-year ban.

'''[2].''' The Defendant has pleaded Not Guilty for reasons explained in 3.
== Procedural Matters ==

'''[3].''' This trial has been declared ''in absentia'' due to the Defendant’s apparent unwillingness to participate, and for there being no way to contact them as they had left the Discord server during the proceedings. As a result, an automatic Not Guilty plea has been entered.

'''[4].''' During the pre-trial, the defense objected to the inclusion of direct messages as evidence without the Defendant’s consent.

4.1 The defense argued that, as the Defendant had not given permission to include the direct messages, the evidence was illegal under Article 23 of the Criminal Code (Violations of Personal Privacy), and therefore could not be used. The prosecution argued that Article 15, §2 of the Constitution specifically says that “private correspondence . . . may be disclosed . . . to prove the commission of a criminal offence . . .” The defense countered by saying that the section allows for other laws to modify it, to which the prosecution replied by saying that the section allows for other laws to expand on it, but not necessarily overrule it.

4.2 This Court ruled in favor of the prosecution, and allowed the evidence to stand. Article 15, §2 of the Constitution says nothing about other laws possibly overruling it, but it does allow for other laws to expand on it, as the prosecution noted. Additionally, it is worth noting the practical implications of such a section being able to be overruled in this circumstance and others. Crimes committed in direct messages would go unpunished as Defendants could simply forbid the authorities from using the offending direct messages as evidence. It is safe to assume that this was certainly ''not'' how the section was intended to be used. Therefore, this would result in an unreasonable or absurd outcome forbidden by the “golden rule” of English law, which is discussed in ''In re Replacement of KingRed31'' 2020 SDSC 21\.
== Did the Defendant commit the alleged crime? ==

'''[5].''' The prosecution presented four pieces of evidence in total. Three of these pieces of evidence were screenshots of the direct message conservation had between the Defendant and the other user. The fourth was the full video sent by the Defendant as the first message in the conversation. The video depicts numerous cherry-picked, false, or unfounded “statistics” strung together in an attempt to convince viewers that “homosexuality is a sin and an abomination.” The direct messages depict the Defendant sending the video, along with an argument between the Defendant and the user, in which the Defendant claims that minor-attracted persons (MAPs) are being normalized as part of the LGBTQ  community, a subject alluded to in the video, and a claim the user disputes. The direct messages also depict the user getting upset over the claims while the Defendant implies that the LGBTQ  community deserves the hate due to the user’s attitude towards the situation.

'''[6].''' This case is ''very'' clear-cut. The simple act of sending the video can quite clearly be seen as upsetting, demeaning, and humiliating speech about someone’s sexuality, or rather the sexuality of every homosexual person that is living, has lived, or will live. In addition to the so-called “facts” and “statistics,” the video uses the word “trannies,” the plural form of the word “tranny,” a known slur referring to transgender people, which by itself is criminal; and it says that homosexual people live a “sodomite lifestyle that causes unhappiness,” a comment that homosexual people will doubtless find upsetting and demeaning. And that does not nearly cover all of what is said in the video. The video is the textbook definition of Hate Speech under Article 72b of the Criminal Code, not to mention an egregious violation of that very law.

'''[7].''' If that wasn’t enough, the implication that gay and lesbian people are attracted to minors that is made in the video, and that is the main topic of the conversation between the Defendant and the user, can also be considered hateful. The Defendant makes the claim that attraction to minors is being normalized as part of the LGBTQ  community and then, upon the other user refuting this claim, says that the user denies “facts.” This is clearly upsetting and humiliating, as the Defendant is essentially lumping together pedophiles and LGBTQ  people as one and the same, if not through the messages by themselves, then certainly when taking into account the video.

'''[8].''' Therefore, the actions taken by the Defendant in the evidence shown very clearly and obviously qualify as Hate Speech.
== Verdict ==

'''[9].''' The Court finds the Defendant guilty of one count of Hate Speech under Article 72b of the Criminal Code.

'''[10].''' The Court sentences the Defendant to a one-year ban. The maximum sentence is warranted due to (1) the sheer number of upsetting, demeaning, and humiliating things said in the video sent by them, as well as (2) the Defendant’s clear intentions of upsetting, demeaning, and humiliating the user whom they were direct-messaging, through the video ''and'' through conversation.

'''[11].''' This ruling, as well as the one detailed in 4.2 on an objection to the use of direct messages as evidence, may be appealed to the /r/SimDemocracy Supreme Court.


==Citations==
<references />