SD v Dickhead68 2020 Crim 2: Difference between revisions
Created page with "Category:Case Law = SD v Dickhead68 2020 Crim 2= {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;" |- ! Date of judgment ! 10th April 2020 |- | Judge | Judge CreatingKing |- | Charges | 1 charge of Indecent Exposure (Article 44 of the Criminal Code) |- | Verdict | Guilty of 1 charge of Indecent Exposure |- | Sentence | 2 weeks mute<ref>Originally no sentence was given.</ref> Parole rescinded |- | Applicable persuasive precedent | Any posts which may lead to people bei..." |
Categorized |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Case Law]] | [[Category:Case Law]] [[Category:Criminal Cases]] [[Category:Court Cases from 2020]] | ||
= SD v Dickhead68 2020 Crim 2= | = SD v Dickhead68 2020 Crim 2= | ||
Revision as of 19:39, 20 March 2025
SD v Dickhead68 2020 Crim 2
| Date of judgment | 10th April 2020 |
|---|---|
| Judge | Judge CreatingKing |
| Charges | 1 charge of Indecent Exposure (Article 44 of the Criminal Code) |
| Verdict | Guilty of 1 charge of Indecent Exposure |
| Sentence | 2 weeks mute[1] Parole rescinded |
| Applicable persuasive precedent | Any posts which may lead to people being uncomfortable or get in trouble irl due to sexual contact are NSFW 1 |
| Appeal | Case partially affirmed by the Supreme Court[2] Ivy Cactus, ex parte Dickhead68 (Appellant) v State of SimDemocracy (Respondent) 2020 SDSC 9 |
JUDGMENT by Judge CreatingKing[3]
[1]. My verdict has been reached. First and foremost. I ask those in power to create a more stringent set of guidelines for NSFW content. With that said, I am taking this opportunity to set a standard for NSFW content. It is quite clear that the "borderline NSFW" content has caused some concern for many people on this server. I am of the opinion that if you are posing NSFW content, even if it is for a meme, it should be relegated to be either tagged and censored or relegated to an NSFW channel. As even as a joke, the type of NSFW content posted can lead to and has led to people in general feeling uncomfortable or potentially running into issues IRL. With all this in mind, I find the defendant guilty and rescind his parole. He will serve out the rest of his previous sentence.
[2]. Regarding the argument that no one has been previously imprisoned for posting such content, we have to set the bar somewhere, and I am setting it now.
