Opinion: The Cost of Freedom

The pursuit of a noble cause or idea is not an end in itself.

History has shown countless examples of those committed to a specific idea who take it "too far" at the expense of others, and the line between principled actor and idealogue is extremely thin. In the realm of law, navigating that boundary is left to judges, who are admired and promoted for their prowess in understanding and interpreting legislation.

We trust judges to rely on precedent in most cases, only overturning egregious miscarriages of justice that are often the result of nearsightedness or partisanship. In the ruling of "In re Appeal of Summary Ban - "mc_uighilin" (u/Panzzrr) [2025] SDSC2" (hereafter "the Panzzrr case"), the Supreme Court has overturned a fundamental precedent that has kept SimDemocracy alive as long as it has: the supremacy of the relevant platform's Terms of Service.

This flawed judgment, made in the name of protecting due process, opens the door for abuse and the death of SimDemocracy.

Not long ago, the SimDem community celebrated its sixth anniversary—this year's festivities were marked by the massive increase in the citizen population that occurred just a month prior due to the viral video posted by longtime member Danyo (Trolligarch). Then and since, many of the "older generation" (i.e. those who were citizens before the most recent immigration wave) noted that SimDem in earlier years was far more permissive of toxic behavior and harassment.

Some members, such as Toast, look fondly upon that era, but the vast majority of citizens are at least content with the protections in place to prevent that conduct, if not interested in strengthening them. Additionally, the Discord Terms of Service (and, by extension, Community Guidelines) have been strengthened in recent years to prevent harmful conduct such as harassment of marginalized groups, the proliferation of CSAM and misinformation, and hate speech in the form of genocide denial.

The tools used and care taken on behalf of Discord have improved over the years as it has faced more scrutiny and the "nuking" (the complete removal of a server, up to and including the banning of its members) of hateful or otherwise harmful servers is something I've seen only increase in that same period.

The Supreme Court ruling in the Panzzrr case opens our beloved community up to that same fate.

In SimDem's history, there have been no small number of people banned under the Discord Terms of Service; many for hate speech in all its forms, but others for issues far more serious—and illegal. I need not elaborate on the specific details of those cases to spare any reader the time and disgust, but the proper course of action is clear: a ban. A final, permanent ban.

As much as we want to believe that we are a government or nation-state, we are not. We cannot make decisions on cases that risk our place on the platform or lead to criminal records. At a certain point, we must admit that there are "SimDem crimes" too serious to permit by allowing the offender to stay on the server for a trial, or even to keep in contact with.

Every judge, besides those ruling in this case, was well aware of that fact—nay, common sense.

However, this group of three (themselves not without controversy) have not only rebuked that approach but applied the ruling retroactively. Hundreds of the most vile people to ever "step foot" in SimDem are now, according to the Court, constitutionally guaranteed the right to return.

There has never, in my estimation and that of esteemed citizens far more knowledgeable than I, been a Supreme Court ruling so dangerous or detrimental to our community than this.

Multiple prominent members, including Danyo himself, who brought so many of us back or introduced us to SimDem for the first time, have already indicated that they no longer wish to remain in the server given the risk of its "nuking." I cannot blame them.

In fact, although I've had my issues with the server in the past, I (like so many others) have always felt drawn to the community for one reason or another. There has never been a more compelling reason to leave.

I will not take this space to encourage people to leave immediately, however; instead, I encourage anyone who has read thus far to take action. Push the Senate to pass legislation immediately to overturn the ruling and hold the Supreme Court justices accountable for what is, at its best, a complete lack of foresight and sound judgment.

If all else fails, then leaving is indeed the only choice left, if only to protect your account.

Our democracy has not yet died; do not let this opportunity to save it slip away.