#august 27 2021

[mermaidinthecity]

bonniemckee: no caption

[skid-the-mighty-poet]

[codenamesazanka]

EITHER YOU SAVE EVERYONE OR YOU'LL BE SAVING NO ONE

resurrecting the ‘Save Muscular Too’ club and hopes now that we’re past the Edgelord Arc and back to ‘single step forward to brighter future’ sentiments

[greendayauthority]

San Francisco, CA, 27 August 2021

[br1ghtestlight]

this is so funny to me actually bcuz this is 100% how i talk abt my characters ages. i know what YEAR they were born and i know what rheir ages are supposed to be at the start of the story but i dont actually know when it takes place?? im really bad at math. There was a moment where rainbow was supposed to be 23 and i somehow accidentally made her 17 lmfao

[somedaytakethetime]

As August draws to a close, let's take a trip down memory lane and witness...

.. a decade of Augusts with Kasper

[vaguehotels]

423 aaaand,,,,, 82 (:

YAYY OK!!! ALSO jsyk i count from the top bc from the bottom is too hard 4 me (<- lazy.)

82 and 423 respectively :3

[maisiepeterslive]

2021 August 27, You Signed Up For This Album Launch: Lafayette ║ Download (x)

You Signed Up For This

The Funeral

This Is On You

Place We Were Made

Volcano

Favourite Ex

Psycho

Worst Of You

John Hughes Movie

[xaviergalatis]

[astrology---realm]

What is August 27 Zodiac Sign? #quiz #zodiacsigns

[doyoulikethissong-poll]

Bobby "Boris" Pickett and the Crypt-Kickers - Monster Mash 1962

"Monster Mash" is a novelty song by Bobby "Boris" Pickett. It was released as a single in August 1962 along with a full-length LP called The Original Monster Mash, which contained several other monster-themed tunes. The "Monster Mash" single was number one on the Billboard Hot 100 chart on October 20–27 of that year, just before Halloween. "Monster Mash" has sustained a lasting impact in various recordings, film inclusions, and re-releases since its initial release. In 2021, nearly 60 years after its release, "Monster Mash" re-entered the Billboard Hot 100 chart at number 37. As of 2023, the song was generating $1 million annually in royalties.

The song is narrated by a mad scientist whose monster, late one evening, rises from his slab to perform a new dance, with a name implying it is inspired by the Mashed Potato, a popular dance of the early 1960s. The dance becomes "the hit of the land" when the scientist throws a party for other monsters, among them classic 1940s horror film icons such as the Wolfman, Igor, Count Dracula, and his son. The song was re-released several times and appeared on the US Billboard charts on two occasions after the original release: August 1970 and May 1973. The BBC had banned the record from airplay in 1962 on the grounds that the song was "too morbid", but it was later performed on the network's television program Juke Box Jury. The record was re-released in the UK in 1973, where it peaked at number three in early October. It re-entered the British charts again on November 2, 2008, at number 60.

"Monster Mash" received a total of 88,9% yes votes!

[reasonsforhope]

"Irish conservationists report that the magnificent osprey has successfully bred in the wilds of the Emerald Isle for the first time in almost 250 years.

Worldwide, ospreys are doing great—listed as “Least Concern” by the IUCN who add they are increasing in population. However their massive brown and white wings have been absent from Irish skies for two centuries after being hunted to extinction.

The last recorded osprey to nest in Ireland was found in 1779, writes the Ireland-based conservation group Golden Eagle Trust on Facebook.

Visiting ospreys sometimes stop on the island to rest, but almost since the signing of the US Declaration of Independence, no pair has ever deemed it a safe environment to raise young.

A nesting pair (ospreys mate for life) was discovered by experienced birdwatcher Giles Knight, the Environmental Farming Scheme Advisor with Ulster Wildlife, a conservation non-profit.

“Along with my son Eoin, I have watched the adults return to the same site since 2021, so you can imagine my excitement the moment that I saw three chicks and two adults this year,” said Knight in a statement. “It was a rub-your-eyes, once-in-a-lifetime moment; an absolute highlight of my 30-year wildlife career—like finding long-lost treasure.”

“With at least two of the chicks fledging this season, this is a huge conservation success story and indicates a healthy wetland ecosystem with plenty of suitable habitat and fish to bring this apex predator back to our skies and plunging into the Fermanagh Lakelands. Truly the return of a living countryside!” ...

The old Gaelic name for osprey was “Iascaire Coirneach”, meaning “Tonsured Fisherman”, possibly related to how its black eye band and white crown give it the appearance of the semi-bald tonsure typical of medieval Christian monks, the Golden Eagle Trust wrote on Facebook in a celebratory post.

“Now these birds are back in Ireland and breeding successfully, it is critical that they are left in peace so their numbers can continue to grow by returning year on year to breed,” Knight added in the statement. “We believe and hope that this could be the start of a raptor dynasty.”"

-via Good News Network, August 27, 2023

[swagwomon]

Regarding the decision on the Tickle v Giggle case, I would like to remind everyone that:

Australia has a population of 26.7 million, of that 26 million, 13.9 million are female (as of 2024).

1 in 4 Australian women have experienced physical/and or sexual violence since the age of 15.

In Australia, intimate partner violence contributes to more death, disability and illness in women aged 25 to 44 than any other preventable risk factor.

On average, one woman is killed every nine days by a current or former partner, this number should equate to 26 women this year. However, at least 58 women and girls have been victims of femicide in Australia this year (as of August 27, 2024).

1 in 3 Australian women and girls have experienced physical violence since the age of 15.

1 in 2 Australian women and girls have experienced violence, partner emotional abuse or stalking since the age of 15.

Around 1 in 4 men in Australia aged 18 to 45 say they have used physical and/or sexual violence against an intimate partner.

Men in Australia made up 86% of all homicide perpatrators in 2021-2022.

Men were the perpetrators of 93% of all sexual offences in Australia in 2021-2022.

The biggest threat to the safety and dignity of women and children in Australia is men.

Instead of protecting women and girls, Australia has instead decided that same-sex spaces for women and girls are discriminatory, and MUST accomodate any male who wishes to invade. That biological sex, and I quote directly from the summary of the case (which can be found on the Federal Court website): 'is changeable.' It is not.

It is unconscionable that a male Justice can make a decision likely to set a legal precedent affecting millions of women and girls. It is unconsionable that this decision is being celebrated and positioned as a win for 'human rights' rather than yet another example of male class solidarity and the virulent misogyny of this country. This case, and many of the cases Australia has seen these past few years, are nothing but endorsements of male privilege.

Don't be fooled: this was not about an app. This was about a man's desire to exert his privilege over women. And he won.

What a gross betrayal of women's rights and safety.

[fatehbaz]

The government of Australia’s northeastern state of Queensland has stunned rights experts by suspending its Human Rights Act for a second time this year to be able to lock up more children.

The ruling Labor Party last month [August 2023] pushed through a suite of legislation to allow under-18s – including children as young as 10 – to be detained indefinitely in police watch houses, because changes to youth justice laws – including jail for young people who breach bail conditions – mean there are no longer enough spaces in designated youth detention centres to house all those being put behind bars. The amended bail laws, introduced earlier this year [2023], also required the Human Rights Act to be suspended.

The moves have shocked Queensland Human Rights Commissioner Scott McDougall, who described human rights protections in Australia as “very fragile”, with no laws that apply nationwide.

“We don’t have a National Human Rights Act. Some of our states and territories have human rights protections [...]. But they’re not constitutionally entrenched so they can be overridden by the parliament,” he told Al Jazeera. The Queensland Human Rights Act – introduced in 2019 – protects children from being detained in adult prison so it had to be suspended for the government to be able to pass its legislation.

---

Earlier this year, Australia’s Productivity Commission reported that Queensland had the highest number of children in detention of any Australian state. Between 2021-2022, the so-called “Sunshine State” recorded a daily average of 287 people in youth detention, compared with 190 in Australia’s most populous state New South Wales, the second highest. [...]

[M]ore than half the jailed Queensland children are resentenced for new offences within 12 months of their release.

Another report released by the Justice Reform Initiative in November 2022 showed that Queensland’s youth detention numbers had increased by more than 27 percent in seven years.

---

The push to hold children in police watch houses is viewed by the Queensland government as a means to house these growing numbers. Attached to police stations and courts, a watch house contains small, concrete cells with no windows and is normally used only as a “last resort” for adults awaiting court appearances or required to be locked up by police overnight. [...]

However, McDougall said he has “real concerns about irreversible harm being caused to children” detained in police watch houses, which he described as a “concrete box”. “[A watch house] often has other children in it. There’ll be a toilet that is visible to pretty much anyone,” he said. “Children do not have access to fresh air or sunlight. And there’s been reported cases of a child who was held for 32 days in a watch house whose hair was falling out. [...]"

---

He also pointed out that 90 percent of imprisoned children and young people were awaiting trial.

“Queensland has extremely high rates of children in detention being held on remand. So these are children who have not been convicted of an offence,” he told Al Jazeera.

Despite Indigenous people making up only 4.6 percent of Queensland’s population, Indigenous children make up nearly 63 percent of those in detention. The rate of incarceration for Indigenous children in Queensland is 33 times the rate of non-Indigenous children. Maggie Munn, a Gunggari person and National Director of First Nations justice advocacy group Change the Record, told Al Jazeera the move to hold children as young as 10 in adult watch houses was “fundamentally cruel and wrong”. [...]

---

[Critics] also told Al Jazeera that the government needed to stop funding “cops and cages” and expressed concern over what [they] described as the “systemic racism, misogyny, and sexism” of the Queensland Police Service.

In 2019, police officers and other staff were recorded joking about beating and burying Black people and making racist comments about African and Muslim people. The recordings also captured sexist remarks [...]. The conversations were recorded in a police watch house, the same detention facilities where Indigenous children can now be held indefinitely.

Australia has repeatedly come under fire at an international level regarding its treatment of children and young people in the criminal justice system. The United Nations has called repeatedly for Australia to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to the international standard of 14 years old [...].

[MR], Queensland’s minister for police and corrective services, [...] – who introduced the legislation, which is due to expire in 2026 – is unrepentant, defending his decision last month [August 2023].

“This government makes no apology for our tough stance on youth crime,” he was quoted as saying in a number of Australian media outlets.

---

Text by: Ali MC. "Australian state suspends human rights law to lock up more children". Al Jazeera. 18 September 2023. At: aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/18/australian-state-suspends-human-rights-law-to-lock-up-more-children [Bold emphasis and some paragraph breaks/contractions added by me.]

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Jesse Singal

Published: Jun 27, 2024

In April Hilary Cass, a British paediatrician, published her review of gender-identity services for children and young people, commissioned by NHS England. It cast doubt on the evidence base for youth gender medicine. This prompted the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), the leading professional organisation for the doctors and practitioners who provide services to trans people, to release a blistering rejoinder. WPATH said that its own guidelines were sturdier, in part because they were “based on far more systematic reviews”.

Systematic reviews should evaluate the evidence for a given medical question in a careful, rigorous manner. Such efforts are particularly important at the moment, given the feverish state of the American debate on youth gender medicine, which is soon to culminate in a Supreme Court case challenging a ban in Tennessee. The case turns, in part, on questions of evidence and expert authority.

Court documents recently released as part of the discovery process in a case involving youth gender medicine in Alabama reveal that WPATH's claim was built on shaky foundations. The documents show that the organisation’s leaders interfered with the production of systematic reviews that it had commissioned from the Johns Hopkins University Evidence-Based Practice Centre (EPC) in 2018.

From early on in the contract negotiations, WPATH expressed a desire to control the results of the Hopkins team’s work. In December 2017, for example, Donna Kelly, an executive director at PATH, told Karen Robinson, the EPC's director, that the WPATH board felt the EPC researchers “cannot publish their findings independently”. A couple of weeks later, Ms Kelly emphasised that, “the [WPATH] board wants it to be clear that the data cannot be used without WPATH approval”.

Ms Robinson saw this as an attempt to exert undue influence over what was supposed to be an independent process. John Ioannidis of Stanford University, who co-authored guidelines for systematic reviews, says that if sponsors interfere or are allowed to veto results, this can lead to either biased summaries or suppression of unfavourable evidence. Ms Robinson sought to avoid such an outcome. “In general, my understanding is that the university will not sign off on a contract that allows a sponsor to stop an academic publication,” she wrote to Ms Kelly.

Months later, with the issue still apparently unresolved, Ms Robinson adopted a sterner tone. She noted in an email in March 2018 that, “Hopkins as an academic institution, and I as a faculty member therein, will not sign something that limits academic freedom in this manner,” nor “language that goes against current standards in systematic reviews and in guideline development”.

Not to reason XY

Eventually WPATH relented, and in May 2018 Ms Robinson signed a contract granting WPATH power to review and offer feedback on her team’s work, but not to meddle in any substantive way. After WPATH leaders saw two manuscripts submitted for review in July 2020, however, the parties’ disagreements flared up again. In August the WPATH executive committee wrote to Ms Robinson that WPATH had “many concerns” about these papers, and that it was implementing a new policy in which WPATH would have authority to influence the EPC team’s output—including the power to nip papers in the bud on the basis of their conclusions.

Ms Robinson protested that the new policy did not reflect the contract she had signed and violated basic principles of unfettered scientific inquiry she had emphasised repeatedly in her dealings with WPATH. The Hopkins team published only one paper after WPATH implemented its new policy: a 2021 meta-analysis on the effects of hormone therapy on transgender people. Among the recently released court documents is a WPATH checklist confirming that an individual from WPATH was involved “in the design, drafting of the article and final approval of [that] article”. (The article itself explicitly claims the opposite.) Now, more than six years after signing the agreement, the EPC team does not appear to have published anything else, despite having provided WPATH with the material for six systematic reviews, according to the documents.

No one at WPATH or Johns Hopkins has responded to multiple inquiries, so there are still gaps in this timeline. But an email in October 2020 from WPATH figures, including its incoming president at the time, Walter Bouman, to the working group on guidelines, made clear what sort of science WPATH did (and did not) want published. Research must be “thoroughly scrutinised and reviewed to ensure that publication does not negatively affect the provision of transgender health care in the broadest sense,” it stated. Mr Bouman and one other coauthor of that email have been named to a World Health Organisation advisory board tasked with developing best practices for transgender medicine.

Another document recently unsealed shows that Rachel Levine, a transwoman who is assistant secretary for health, succeeded in pressing WPATH to remove minimum ages for the treatment of children from its 2022 standards of care. Dr Levine’s office has not commented. Questions remain unanswered, but none of this helps WPATH’s claim to be an organisation that bases its recommendations on science. 

[ Via: https://archive.today/wJCI7 ]

--

==

So, there are 6 completed reviews sitting somewhere, that WPATH knows shows undesirable (to them) results. And they know it. And despite - or perhaps, because of - that, they wrote the insane SOC8 anyway. And then, at the behest of Rachel Levine, went back and took out the age limits, making it even more insane.

This isn't how science works, it's how a cult works.

When John Templeton Foundation commissioned a study on the efficacy of intercessory prayer, a study which unsurprisingly found that it's completely ineffective, it was forced to publish the negative results.

So, even the religious are more ethical than gender ideologues when it comes to science. This is outright scientific corruption.

[sflow-er]

About the settlement in YR S3

A discussion with @scatteredpiecesofme a while back inspired me to look more closely into the settlement between August, Wilhelm and Simon. I already dabbled in criminal justice meta after S2, but I didn't account for a settlement back then, so it's time to update my info!

Posting this, I know it's a topic people have strong feelings about. If you choose to read below the cut, please keep in mind that it's not meant to be a moral judgment. It's an attempt to review the case as presented in the show and interpret it through what I've learned about law and procedure in real Sweden.

TL;DR: The offences being settled are defamation and unlawful breach of privacy. The settlement of 1.2 million kronor is dozens of times higher than what Simon could realistically expect from court.

Sources: Swedish Criminal Code (EN-SV), Code of Judicial Procedure (SV), preparatory documents for relevant laws (this and this), reference collection on kränkningsersättning, cases available online or in the media (e.g. this and this on dagensjuridik.se), legal blogs, articles and legal advice websites (e.g. lawline.se, Domarbloggen), discussion on treasonable offences (SvD column, expert exchange, motion to parliament, this and this tabloid article), guidelines/advice for prosecutors (e.g. on defamation, day-fines).

Disclaimer: I'm just a layperson and not even Swedish myself, so it's entirely possible I missed something! Respectful discussion and corrections are very welcome!

.

The facts of the case against August

Quick recap

August committed criminal offences by filming and posting the video.

Sara reported August to the police.

August, Wille, Simon and their legal counsels and parents negotiated a settlement at the royal palace with Jan-Olof presiding.

JO said they wanted to avoid a trial. Rickard claimed the evidence and testimonies would not be enough to secure a conviction, and the video was not likely to be considered explicit.

Simon's counsel said Wille's legal team had already decided not to pursue the matter in court.

They settled for 1.2 million kronor, presumably per plaintiff.

The offences on the table

“Spreading that kind of video could be considered gross defamation, gross unlawful breach of privacy, and possibly a CP offence. The penal value is prison, in any case.”

It's pretty clear August also committed intrusive photography, but that overlaps with unlawful breach of privacy, so that might be why it wasn't mentioned. Here's a complete list:

- intrusive photography (kränkande fotografering, covertly photographing or filming someone in a private space) - unlawful breach of privacy (olaga integritetsintrång, disseminating sensitive images in a way that's liable to result in serious harm) - defamation (förtal, disseminating information that identifies someone as a criminal or their way of life as reprehensible, or is otherwise liable to expose them to contempt) - treasonable offences (högmålsbrott, a clause that, among other things, makes some crimes more severe when committed against a member of the Royal House) -CP (I'm not writing this out so the post doesn't get caught in filters)

Unlawful breach of privacy was also mentioned by Rosh back in S2. It's a fairly new offence that entered into force in 2018, and very few cases lead to a conviction (only 27 out of the total 1,876 in 2021). Even when a perpetrator is identified, it's hard to prove it was them (and no one else) using the device. Proving an intent of serious harm isn't easy either, but the court usually considers whether the defendant should have known that was liable to occur.

The main angle in the show was defamation, which doesn't need to be untrue in Sweden. It's all about exposing someone to contempt - and if the defamatory statement is also liable to result in serious harm, it becomes gross defamation. This is why Rickard, who already called gross defamation in S2, argues in S3 that outing someone no longer counts as exposing them to contempt (he's refuting that it was defamation at all).

Another way off the hook would be to show that 1) the statement was true and 2) the defendant was “obliged to make it” or it was “otherwise justifiable to provide information about the matter.”

The treasonable offences clause is a bit of a legal minefield. It allows the public prosecutor to demand harsher punishments for some crimes when they are committed against members of the Royal House, but it also creates questions of whether the royals are even able to bring these types of charges the normal way. It clearly didn't come into play in YR, but I'll return to it in the conclusion.

A CP offence was also mentioned in S2 by Rosh and Rickard. Rosh reckoned it was a sure thing and could land August in prison, but Rickard only listed it as a possibility. He said the penal value was prison “in any case” because gross unlawful breach of privacy is always punishable by prison (more about the penal values in my now-obsolete post).

Still, this was dramatic exaggeration by the writers. August is 18, and persons under 21 could not be imprisoned unless there were very heavy grounds for it back in 2020/2021. Even the stricter law from 2022 mainly applies to violent and gang-related offences.

By the old law and practice, any sentence given to an 18-yo would be reduced to 50% of an adult's sentence, and August is also a first-time offender. If convicted, he'd be looking at some combination of fines, youth community service, and/or a suspended sentence.

That's another silly thing about the Alexander ploy in S2, although not as silly as Alexander forgetting he had already been caught with the drugs.

So that's the potential crimes listed. We'll get to the crimes that were actually being settled in a little bit.

Relevant facts about procedure

To understand how they got from Sara's police report to the settlement scene, it's useful to look at some intricacies of the Swedish justice system that may differ from other countries.

The right to press and pursue charges

By Swedish law, most crimes are subject to public prosecution by the state. The police are legally obligated to start what is known as a “preliminary” investigation when a crime is reported, and the prosecutor is legally obligated to consider charges and pursue them. Regardless of what the victim/plaintiff wants.

There are two notable exceptions. Charges for målsägandebrott (“plaintiff offences”) can only be brought by the plaintiff, and angivelsebrott (“offences subject to report”) must be reported for prosecution by the plaintiff. If an angivelsebrott is reported by someone else, the plaintiff decides if they want the case to go ahead.

These are also the only types of crimes where the plaintiff is able to withdraw the charges. If they do, neither they nor the public prosecutor can ever bring the same matter again.

In the YR case, defamation is målsägandebrott, the privacy offences are angivelsebrott, and CP is always subject to public prosecution.

It's also possible for angivelsebrott to be publicly prosecuted when public interest calls for it (e.g. gross unlawful breach of privacy is often considered serious enough to meet this bar). The same goes for målsägandebrott under certain circumstances, e.g. when the victim of defamation is under 18. Public prosecution also applies if there are multiple offences and one of the other offences is subject to it.

If charges are raised by public prosecution, the injured party becomes unable to withdraw them (the state becomes the plaintiff in their stead).

Concurrent offences and protective interests

When someone commits more than one offence by a single action, these are assessed for brottskonkurrens (concurrence of offences).

In some cases, the offence with the harshest punishments 'consumes' the others so they no longer count. For example, gross unlawful breach of privacy is always punishable by prison, so it often consumes defamation and even gross defamation.

In other cases, all the offences count 'in concurrence'. One example is when the laws that were broken had different skyddsinteressen (protective interests). In the YR case, intrusive photography and unlawful breach of privacy have the same protective interest: both crimes infringe on the right to privacy and personal integrity. Defamation infringes on a person's honour and reputation, which is a different interest. Hence, unlawful breach of privacy of normal severity is often pursued and punished in concurrence with defamation (normal or gross), but less often with intrusive photography.

As for CP, Swedish law classifies it as an offence against the public order (not as a sex crime, although it can overlap with sex crimes such as using minors for sexual posing). The protective interest is twofold: the individual child's right to personal integrity, and the right of children at large to be safe from CP. So there is some overlap with the privacy offences, but it's also an offence that falls within a completely different area of law.

Note that the sentence is not given as the sum total of the concurrent offences! It's the sentence for the most severe offence, with increases for the concurrent offences (as determined by the judge).

Settlement vs. mediation

JO tells us the parties are doing förlikning (settlement) to avoid the matter going to trial. This is different from medling (mediation).

Settlement primarily applies to disputes, but it can also be a private, out-of-court resolution for some offences. In my understanding, these would be målsägandebrott or angivelsebrott, as the plaintiff agrees not to pursue the matter in exchange for compensation. The settlement also prevents public prosecution even if it is determined later on that the conditions for that are met.

Mediation is a process where a neutral party authorised by the court (not JO) brings the victim and perpetrator of a crime together. It can also be used for family law disputes, but this is less relevant for us. The parties can agree on compensation, but the main objective is just to discuss and process the matter. The perpetrator must admit their guilt in order for mediation to go ahead.

Mediation is separate from the court process, but the defendant's willingness to enter it and a favourable outcome may be taken into account. The prosecutor may bring less severe charges or even offer åtalsunderlåtelse (no-prosecution deal), whereby the offence goes on the guilty person's criminal record but they avoid trial and punishment. If a trial does happen, the judge may be more lenient.

How this all relates to the settlement scene in YR

Based on the above, the settlement in 3.01 must be for defamation, and very likely also unlawful breach of privacy. Intrusive photography is also possible, although the characters never mention it.

Defamation is målsägandebrott and privacy offences are angivelsebrott. Hence, the matter can be settled out of court.

It's hard to say if any of the offences could be gross, despite what Rickard said back in S2. The breach of privacy probably isn't, since it hasn't consumed the defamation or been publicly prosecuted. The defamation could certainly be (this would align with legal precedent for spreading sex tapes), but I think this type of gross defamation of the Crown Prince and another minor should already meet the threshold for public interest.

We don't know exactly when the settlement scene is set, or how long has passed between seasons. Offences involving minor parties must be investigated without delay, but it is possible that the prosecutor is still considering whether to claim public interest. If the settlement is finalised before public charges can be brought for these particular offences, that will no longer be possible.

The opposite is true for the potential CP offence. In my understanding, being able to settle out of court means that must already be off the table.

The police will have been legally obligated to open a preliminary investigation when they received a report about a legal (young) adult having filmed two minors in a sexual situation. Simon and Wille will have been notified of the privacy offences and defamation, and asked if they wanted the investigation to go ahead (since they didn't make the report themselves). But a CP offence is different. It's the kind of crime that must have been investigated even if the victims said they didn't want to press charges or refused to cooperate.

Based on the preliminary investigation, the prosecutor will have considered charges. August's age and development gap to Wille and Simon and the explicitness of the video will have been assessed. His defamatory (not sexual) intent and the other offences could have factored in as well.

I'm not going to guess any further at the reasoning, but no charges were brought. CP is subject to public prosecution, and that also applies to any concurring offences. The settlement wouldn't be possible if it was still in the mix.

Instead, they could be having court-authorised mediation with a neutral party, but only if August already admitted his guilt. (This was actually the part that confused me the most when I first watched the show and wasn't aware of the difference between the processes.)

Anyway. Now that we know what was being settled, I also want to look at the level of compensation.

Compensation compared to court sanctions

The settlement was for 1.2 million kronor. Presumably per plaintiff, as that was the number Simon's counsel gave him. Both he and Rickard described it as generous.

So how does the sum actually compare to what the court might have awarded Simon or handed down as a punishment to August?

Fines

If convicted in court, August could be sentenced to dagsböter (day-fines). The sum ranges from 50 to 1,000 kronor per day, and the minimum number of fines is 30. The maximum is 150, or 200 for multiple offences.

In this case, there are indeed multiple offences (two or three depending on whether intrusive photography still counts), so the absolute maximum is 200,000.

Now for some speculation!

A day-fine is the person's annual income divided by a thousand, adjusted for net wealth and debt. August is a cash-poor student with no job. He must get a bit of income from the estate and possibly some other investments, but if he can't afford to pay Simon back for the drugs and alcohol, it can't be much.

So, the base sum will be low. It gets raised by 50 kronor for every 500,000 of net wealth over 1.5 million, but then there's also a reduction for significant debts. If August truly has to sell his estate to free up 2.4 million, it can't be valued very high and/or he must be in serious debt. His day-fine will land in the hundreds, but I doubt it reaches 1,000.

It's hard to say how many day-fines he would get, but I don't think it would be anywhere close to 200. In examples found online, 40 seems pretty common for each of these crimes at normal severity. In one case, a man convicted of unlawful breach of privacy and gross defamation got a suspended sentence + 80 day-fines, which changed to 100 day-fines for just gross defamation on appeal.

Although the parties in these cases are all adults, while August is in the young offenders bracket. For example, he might get those 80 day-fines but no suspended sentence, or he might get something else entirely. Compare with a case where an 18-yo boy (17 at the time of the crime) spread a film of his friend having sex with a woman: he was convicted of both intrusive photography and unlawful breach of privacy but only sentenced to 35 hours of youth community service.

However, the boy did have to pay compensation.

Compensation payable to the victim

An injured party is often entitled to apply for compensation. In these types of crimes, it's called kränkningsersättning (compensation for infringement/suffering), and there is no cap on it.

However, there are some relevant sample cases online.

The boy in our previous example had to pay 25,000 to the woman.

A person who spread a sexual film showing a 14-yo girl was convicted of gross defamation and had to pay 25,000.

A man who secretly filmed an 8 to 12-yo girl in the bathroom was convicted of a CP offence and had to pay 25,000. The reference collection of cases says it's worth noting this happened before intrusive photography was criminalised as its own offence.

A woman who filmed a 16-yo boy having sex with his girlfriend and posted the video online was convicted of unlawful breach of privacy and gross defamation and had to pay 30,000.

A man who spread sexual photos of his ex to her friends and employer was convicted of gross defamation and had to pay 50,000.

A man who uploaded films of his ex on an adult site was convicted of gross unlawful breach of privacy and had to pay 60,000. In a very similar case before the privacy offences were criminalised, a man was convicted of gross defamation and had to pay 70,000.

The settlement sum of 1.2 million is 17 to 20 times higher than the highest examples. It's also 40 times higher than the example of the 16-yo boy and his girlfriend, which I think is a remotely similar case (although the place of filming was less private and the dissemination was less broad and damaging than in YR). On August's side, the 2.4 million is many times higher than the day-fines plus compensation, even if we don't know the exact numbers.

So that gives us some idea of the level of compensation and monetary punishment that Simon and August could realistically expect, but those aren't the only factors Simon might consider.

Conclusion: a trial could get very complicated

As mentioned above, Wille's legal team had already decided they would not be going to court. It's unsure if that could have even been done in the normal way.

Some legal experts believe the treasonable offences clause prevents members of the Royal House from bringing normal charges at all if they are victims of målsägandebrott or angivelsebrott, because they are considered a stately institution. Others think it should be possible if they just waive their right to treasonable offences, but the royals have never tried.

Instead, the public prosecutor may ask the government to authorise a treasonable offences charge. In theory, the government could say yes even if the victim themself said no, but that's extremely unlikely (for example, when a teen threw a cake in the real king's face in 2001, it was considered the king's decision). The prosecutor who handled the matter in YR could have already asked and been denied, or they could have decided against it if they knew Wille would object.

If Wille had decided to try and bring normal charges, his legal standing would have become a hot topic. If treasonable offences had been charged, the charges would have been public. Either way, the case would have gained a lot of media attention.

Wille being one of the plaintiffs could have also lead to a more stringent punishment for August. Especially for treasonable offences; the real cake-thrower was sentenced to 100 day-fines for harassment, which is a big sentence for a 16-yo (an adult could've got up to four years in prison). Even if they were normal charges, Wille was the one August intended to harm, which would have made the crimes all the more severe.

The level of compensation could have been higher too...at least for Wille. It's frankly beyond my comprehension as a layperson whether his and Simon's cases could have even been tried together due to their wildly different circumstances.

Simon is like any other person in the legal system. If the case did go to trial and August was convicted, he would receive compensation in line with the above. August would also have to pay his legal fees, as well as the potential fines.

It's hard to say how good the chances of a conviction were. Rickard was just defending August when he said identifying someone as gay was no longer considered defamatory, but that is true for Swedish society at large. However, it can still be defamatory if you out someone to people who can be expected to react with contempt (e.g. a religious group). For both defamation and privacy offences, it should also matter how widely the information was disseminated and how bad the consequences were (although you won't be rewarded for causing less harm than expected/intended).

We never actually heard if Rickard had a defence in mind for Simon's particular circumstances. On the one hand, Simon was already out, and he wasn't the target of August's harmful intent. On the other hand, surely August should have known he was liable to suffer serious harm by association. Their lawyers could argue these and other standpoints, and it could get complicated, especially if Wille couldn't be involved after settling.

For argument's sake... Let's say Rickard was right about the evidence and testimony not being enough, and Simon lost the trial.

He would have to pay both his and August's legal feels. Those are probably covered by the Erikssons' home insurance, but there will be a deductible of about 20%, and a cap of two, three hundred thousand. I assume this would normally be enough, but going up against “one of Sweden's best criminal lawyers” could still be a daunting prospect. Rickard might be representing his stepson for free at this early stage, but if the case went to trial and he was very confident they could win, that might change.

And leaving the financial stuff aside, Simon says he just wants the whole thing to be over. He doesn't want to have to rehash it all in court against August and Rickard, and although it's Wille's side who complain about the media storm, that isn't fun for Simon either. On the contrary, he's the one who's been targeted for hate and scrutiny.

The proceedings would likely be held behind closed doors since Simon is a minor, but an anonymised version of the court decision would still be public. At any point, word could get out about the case, which would quickly be connected to Wille because they were on the video together, and the media would be all over Simon again.

All that considered... Settling out of court for a comfortable sum of money he can use to move on with his life might not be the path of “maximum justice” for Simon, but it is a very understandable choice.