View source for SD v warlock23 2025 Crim 18

[[Category:Case Law|2025-03-13-01]] [[Category:Criminal Cases|2025-03-13-01]] [[Category:Court Cases from 2025|2025-03-13-01]]
[[Category: Case Law Concerning Hate Speech]]
= SD v warlock23 2025 Crim 18=
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left;"
|-
! Date of judgment
! 13th March 2025
|-
| Judge
| Judge Heinrich<ref name="dodo">User was known as Heinrich on Discord at the time of the verdict. He has previously appeared in case law as Dodowarrior44</ref>
|-
| [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rGFVlvEmwhVkfwh-4PVlGgsYA9bfln5XVnjKhe3MjfU/edit?tab=t.0 Charges]
| 
* A charge of 1st degree hate speech
* Two charges of 2nd degree hate speech
|-
| [https://discord.com/channels/554769523635650580/1341181623395291281/1349769785684135989 Verdict]
| Guilty on all charges.
|-
| Sentence
| Permanent ban
|-
| Applicable persuasive precedent
| 
* Political beliefs can not be used as an aggravating factor in Hate Speech cases, [6]
|}
== JUDGMENT by Judge Heinrich ==
[1] The defendant is being charged with one count of Hate Speech in the First Degree, and two counts of Hate Speech in the Second Degree.

[2] The prosecution’s argument can be summed up neatly by noting that the defendant is unrepentant and generally acting in bad faith while making speech acts that clearly violate [[Criminal_Code_2020#Article_53a._Hate_Speech|Article 53]]<ref name="53a" /> of the [[Criminal Code 2020|criminal code]].

[3] The defence valiantly tries to argue that “vermin” is not a derogatory term. The Court rejects this argument, as the word is commonly used (as noted by the prosecution) by hateful regimes to refer to those they consider non-human. Furthermore, the word is almost never used by a reasonable person to describe a group of people that that person has no qualms with.

[4] The defence then argues that the usage of the n-word is not necessarily criminal on SimDemocracy. However, as [[SD v Mooklyn (Remanded) 2023 Crim 1]] established (and later cases have upheld), any usage of the word is inherently hateful. 

:[4.1] Under [[Criminal_Code_2020#Article_53a._Hate_Speech|Article 53]]<ref name="53a">The judge likely meant to say Article 53a, hate speech. Article 53 refers to harassment.</ref> of the [[Criminal Code 2020|Criminal Code]], it is stated that “fact that the upsetting, demeaning, or humiliating speech was not directed to a specific individual or group of individuals is immaterial to establishing criminal liability under this Article”, further reinforcing that the criminality of hate speech is not inherently hate-based, but the act of speaking certain words or phrases. The defence agrees that the “defendant relayed speech”, which is included under making a speech act for the purposes of this article.

:[4.2] The defence asks that the Court go against persuasive precedent in this case in regards to the usage of the sort-a. However, it is made most clear by previous judgements that “the casual usage of the n-word is a form of expression that both attacks and promotes hatred against other people based on their protected characteristics” ([[SD v Mooklyn (Remanded) 2023 Crim 1]]).

[5] The defence’s third argument is the most interesting. Does making a true statement constitute hate speech? This Court cannot in good faith find it to be so. The prosecution cites [[SD v Mooklyn 2021 Crim 4]] to make its case, but the verdict specifically states that “false statistics and false information can be very harmful”. Criminalizing true speech is a parody of hate speech laws and one the Court will not lightly accept, outside of doxxing situations. While enjoyable to discuss, the Court will refuse to set a precedent on this point as is it not necessary for this case: in that same exhibit (Exhibit 3), the defendant quite clearly states that “I hate them” in reference to people who identify as lesbian, gay, or other associated identities that are defined as protected characteristics under [[Constitution#Article_14:_Equality_before_the_law|Article 13 Section 3]]<ref name="art13ss3">At the time of adding this case to the Archives, [[Constitution#Article_13:_The_Supervisors|Article 13]] was about Supervisors, whereas [[Constitution#Article_14:_Equality_before_the_law|Article 14§3]] was about protected characteristics.</ref> of the [[Constitution#Part_6:_The_Bill_of_Rights|Bill of Rights]] in the [[Constitution]].

[6] Finally, the defence notes that the defendant’s personal political beliefs ought not to influence a criminal conviction. This the Court holds to be true. [[Constitution#Article_15:_Freedom_of_expression|Section 2]]<ref name="sec2">At the time of adding this case to the Archives, the quoted line is found in [[Constitution#Article_15:_Freedom_of_expression|Article 15]] of the [[Constitution]]</ref> of the [[Constitution#Part_6:_The_Bill_of_Rights|Bill of Rights]] is quite clear that “[e]qual protection of the law [...] shall not be restricted or abridged on the basis of protected characteristics”, with political beliefs also being a protected characteristic. The Court rejects the claim that the defendant’s political beliefs can be used as an aggravating factor. “Equal protection of the law” is a quite clear and broad phrase that at the very least prevents someone from receiving additional punishment because of one’s protected characteristics.

[7] The prosecution also provided more than enough evidence, in the Court’s eyes, to show a repeated pattern of unrepentant anti-LGBTQ+ and bad-faith behavior. In particular, the defendant’s statement that “they say slurs right [/] my type of people” is taken by the Court as an unambiguous statement of association with future violations of [[Criminal_Code_2020#Article_53a._Hate_Speech|Article 53]]<ref name="53a" />.

[8] Exhibit 1 shows the defendant making a clear statement of derogation directed towards (ethno-)religious groups. The defendant is found guilty of hate speech in the second degree and sentenced to a ban of six months.

[9] Exhibit 2 shows the defendant using a slur directed at a group of people based on a protected characteristic (in this case, race). [[Criminal_Code_2020#Article_53a._Hate_Speech|Article 53(a) Section 3.1]] is clear that “[using] a slur” automatically makes speech fall under second degree hate speech at a minimum. Was this slur used with the intention to cause apprehension? Yes. A ping, as part of a message directed at another user, insulting that user’s life, is a clear insult and cause of apprehension. For this, the defendant is found guilty of hate speech in the first degree, and sentenced to a permanent ban.

[10] Exhibit 3, as discussed in Section 5 of this ruling, shows the Defendant making a clear declaration of hatred towards a group of people based on a protected characteristic. As a reasonable person would find this speech upsetting, this is a violation of [[Criminal_Code_2020#Article_53a._Hate_Speech|Article 53(a) Section 2]]. The defendant is found guilty of second degree hate speech and sentenced to a ban of six months.
----