Court Opinion
Written by dreckly
31st October 2026, 23:44 PM UTC
MAJORITY OPINION.— In the consideration of this case, the court posed three questions to itself, firstly whether the user "monalisafr" was definitively "stella?", secondly whether the comments made by the respondent would be considered to be of a racist nature and thirdly, if the comments were of sufficient severity to be considered harassment of such a degree as to amount to Terrorism under Part 2 (1) of the Defense Act 2025 (as applied prior to the Defense (Intelligence and Lists) Order 2026 - due to the offence being committed prior to the submission of the order).
The court is satisfied, that following the user "Crayans" and the member formerly known as "kas?" that the user "monalisafr" is demonstrably the respondent, stella?, when she stated in Exhibit I + II "ok wait a sec" as "stella?" and then entering the room as "monalisafr" - shown when the room bot "Winston" greeted her, when "monalisafr" was asked by Crayans in Exhibit III "who r u", replied "stellar x".
We are in agreement that the statements made by the defendant, were on such nature, that the court would describe them as racist. Further to this point, when we consider the definition of Harassment per the Crimes Act 2025, we are satisfied that the remarks do meet the description of this crime.
Where Harassment is an unclassified offence, there is no set limit for what punishment can be given, therefore it is for the court to determine, on a sliding scale of the severity of the level of harassment which has taken place. We determined that the comments made were of such a serious nature that they do indeed mandate the imposition of the most serious punishment available to this court.
The following points were also considered, firstly, the evidence presented by the DoJ suggests that not only was this abhorrent crime committed, but it was done so with malice aforethought. Chiefly the respondent intentionally moved to an alternative account, before making the series of comments as demonstrated in Exhibits I to IV, stating in Exhibit III "Cba to get my main banned". This suggests a level of prior planning, that would show this was not just an off hand comment, but serious beliefs that she chose to launch at a high ranking member of White House.
Consideration was also given to the role of the Constitution, under Article 8 "Bill of Rights" under Section 1 (2) of the same "The right to be treated equally and with respect shall not be infringed, no matter the circumstances" the court determines that the actions of the defendant did infringe Inconclusive-'s right to equality.
Therefore the court is satisfied that the comments made by the respondent were of such severity as to meet the definition of Terrorism.
WHEREFORE.—The Secretary of Defense is hereby authorized to issue secondary legislation to facilitate the permanent addition of stell? and clones to the Ban on Sight list.
SO ORDERED.—Chief Justice dreckly delivered the opinion, in which Senior Associate Justices Brokyy_ and Associate Justice .Martin joined.
