The Versutian Federation v. Jonorio

Chapter 6 Clause 5 of the Legal Code describes Griefing, in part, as the "deliberate antagonizing, harassing, or bullying of other citizens." It is this part of the definition that is relevant to this case. Prosecution rests its case entirely on screenshots of conversations in the region's Discord sever, centered around the same narrow span of time in which the Defendant engaged in disrespectful discourse. The Defendant's counsel has argued that this discourse was a result of ignorance as a newcomer to the region as well as a response to provocation from other members of the region, employing three exhibits of his own to help his case (which will be deemed exhibits K, L, and M). Regardless of what motivates someone to speak to others in a particular way, when conduct is formally evaluated in this setting, we must determine if that conduct can rightly be said to violate our region's laws. On its face the Defendant's conduct in a few instances is obviously a form of Griefing, and subject to punishment as outlined by the Legal Code.

The region's penal code is one that contemplates degrees of severity, so that we do not have to convict someone of a heinous crime with the same level of punishment as the most basic violation. We rely on the Minister of Domestic Affairs to handle small matters of petty grievances and violations of conduct, just as we rely on moderators in the Forum and Discord to do the same. This is done because it is simply inefficient to run to the Court every time someone beaks a simple rule or warrants simple corrective action. We have seen moderation in our Discord server to this effect multiple times since this new Constitution and Legal Code took effect. It is this Court's opinion that the conduct the Defendant engaged in should have been handled in a similar manner, and prosecution missed a crucial opportunity to distinguish this Defendant's actions from those of others who have been punished outside of this Court. There is no compelling argument for why the conduct identified in this trial merits greater scrutiny and attention from this Court, nor a refutation of the defense counsel's argument that context mitigates the offenses to a great degree. Having said that, we are here now and we must determine to what extent the Defendant engaged in Griefing and what the appropriate punishment is in this particular case.

There is a fine line between humor and satire and offensive conduct. The only thing we have going for us when deciding what something is, is context. The defense counsel's argument hinges entirely on context, and the context is clear. Many exchanges that take place in the region's Discord, and even in neighboring ones, is virtually indistinguishable from the Defendant's words. When two people are in on the joke, it becomes impossible for a reasonable observer to cry foul, when the supposed victim is himself part of the dialogue and a wiling participant. Defense counsel, as the recipient of two of the alleged counts of Griefing, confirms this to be the case. The problem for the Defendant is that, as counsel argued, he was new to the region at the time. He could not have created the rapport and relationships with other members of the region that would generate the kind of familiarity that would allow his conduct to be dismissed as the equivalent to verbal roughhousing. Not everyone was in on the joke, and the way the Defendant treated his fellow regionmates was disrespectful and not even clearly intended in jest. Counsel in fact never argued that these comments were deliberately over the top, though counsel appealed to their humorous nature as being such. While this Court recognizes that provocations can be mitigating circumstances in some cases, the present case is not one of them. Regardless of what spurred the Defendant to respond as he did, he was responsible for his words and actions, and this Court does not see any equivalent offense from those deemed to be provocateurs.

Prosecution's exhibits B, D-F, and I, as well as defense counsel's exhibit M, show the Defendant effectively and literally telling other people to shut up. The Court does not find these to be examples of Griefing under this Legal Code and dismisses these three counts.

Prosecution's exhibit C is a direct message. This Court believes that a direct message constitutes a deliberate decision to send a message to another person, and is by its nature personal and targeted. It would constitute an example of Griefing.

Prosecution's exhibit H and defense counsel's exhibit L constitute roughly the same kind of context, with prosecution's being a more extreme variation. Considering it was a response to an adverse decision related to the Defendant's personal interests, the Court views it as retaliatory harassment, particularly considering the use of Caps Lock to convey yelling. It would constitute an example of Griefing.

Prosecution's exhibits G and J are clearly targeted at one individual, though the context is not apparent in the prosecution's indictment nor the defense counsel's argument. The first appears to be much the same as exhibit H, while the second seems more in line with exhibit L. This would have been a good area for prosecution to have expanded on its case, but having to forge ahead without that information, the Court can only determine that exhibit G would constitute an example of Griefing, and dismiss the other count.

Therefore, the Court rules Defendant Jonorio is Guilty of three counts of Griefing.

Both parties are invited to make sentencing recommendations, or to waive this period. The Court will proceed with sentencing if no response is received by June 4.