View source for SD v thefinalseason 2025 Crim 21

[[Category:Case Law|2025-03-29]] [[Category:Criminal Cases|2025-03-29]] [[Category:Court Cases from 2025|2025-03-29]]
[[Category:Case Law Concerning Hate Speech]]
=SD v thefinalseason 2025 Crim 21=
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left;"
|-
! Date of judgment
! 29th March 2025
|-
| Judge
| Judge Britz
|-
| [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Tl1Shn3jjo8LOcpQyM-6OlfnYJy6PQGUQSsKZz9m07g/edit?tab=t. Charges]
| 1 charge of Hate Speech in the Second Degree ([[Criminal_Code_2020#Article_53a._Hate_Speech|Article 53a, §2 of the Criminal Code]])
|-
| [https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRcCpLLnaT2vklvyCLEN7WDwMOL9iaCWZAd4OP9wr-OIjSOURU9L4cyX2fIVzNM-BK0VQ0Ku8kmjA1_/pub Verdict]
| Guilty of 1 charge of Hate Speech in the Second Degree
|-
| Sentence
| 3 month ban
|-
| Applicable persuasive precedent
| 
*  The Discord Terms of Service does not infringe on the law of the State of SimDemocracy, and is simply the minimum amount of restrictions that applies to any server on the platform, [3]
** Reaffirms [[SD v dominax273 2025 Crim 7|SD v dominax273 [2025] Crim 7 [3]]]       
* The “soft” version of the  “n-word,” is not an example of linguistic reappropriation, and remains hateful slur, [2]
** Reaffirms [[SD v Mooklyn (Remanded) 2023 Crim 1|SD v Mooklyn [2023] Crim 1 [1]]]
** Reaffirms [[SD v dominax273 2025 Crim 7|SD v dominax273 [2025] Crim 7 [1]]]
|}
== JUDGMENT by Judge Britz ==
===Introduction===
[1] The state has charged the defendant, thefinalseason, with one count of Hate Speech in the Second Degree

===On the count of Hate Speech in the Second degree===
[2] There was no refutation from the defence that the defendant did say the “n-word” in the message “the anti (censored) deep state”. Instead, the defence first argued that the law does not inherently state the “n-word” is a slur, however, the court does not find this argument compelling in any way. Under [[Criminal_Code_2020#Article_53a._Hate_Speech|Article 53a, §2 of the Criminal Code]], a slur is “any derogatory or insulting term applied to a group of persons classed by a protected characteristic.” Precedent, in this case [[SD v dominax273 2025 Crim 7|SD v dominax273 [2025] Crim 7]], has long been set that affirms the n-word, a historically racist term, is indeed a racial slur that is applied to a protected characteristic, which in this instance is race. The defence then argues that the “n-word”, specifically the “soft” variant of it, which ends in “a” instead of “er”, is a form of linguistic reappropriation. The court once does not agree with this and instead sides with the prosecution in that the n-word has always been a form of hate and cannot be interpreted as anything else. The defence’s argument that the defendant is part of the African-American community is unverifiable due to the nature of being a virtual democracy simulation. Also, it would have no impact on the outcome the court has made today, as the law is applied equally to all members of the State of SimDemocracy.

===On the Discord Terms of Service===
[3] Like many other cases involving the use of the “n-word”, the defence has made the argument that the Discord Terms of Service allow usage of linguistic reapproriation, citing [[In re Restraining Order Act 2019 SDSC 1|In re Restraining Order Act [2019] SDSC 1]]. However, the court reaffirms the logic in [[SD v dominax273 2025 Crim 7|SD v dominax273 [2025] Crim 7]], in that the Discord Terms of Service do not necessarily give rights but simply set a minimum amount of restrictions that all servers on the platform, including the State of SimDemocracy, must follow. If the converse were true, there would be no need for a Criminal or Civil code, as the Discord Terms of Service would simply be “the law”.

===Verdict===
[3] The Court has sided with the prosecution in that the defendant unequivocally has said a racial slur that despite being the “soft” variant of the “n-word”, does not constitute linguistic reapproraition. Therefore, the court finds the defendant, thefinalseason, guilty of one count of Hate Speech in the Second Degree, and sentences them to a 3 month ban from the date of arrest.

----
Note from the Editor: counsel for the defendant wrote a [https://discord.com/channels/554769523635650580/1028647313196994590/1353823813384802476 very long series of messages] that may be worth reading, but were rejected by the court.