In this case, the defendant was indicted for Obscene Acts via Telecommunications on the grounds that, during a conflict with a teammate in an online game, he typed profanity containing sexual words in the chat window. However, the defendant and the victim had met for the first time in the game, and the remarks were found to be an emotional reaction to the other party's profanity rather than a one-sided sexual expression. The investigators presumed the intent behind the remarks merely because sexual words were used, but in actual context it was simply a heated verbal fight venting anger.

Reviewing the entire chat log in context, I emphasized that the defendant's remarks were not aimed at expressing or arousing sexual desire but were simply a momentary outburst of anger. Because the victim had been responding with profanity of a similar level, I argued strongly that the defendant's conduct alone could not be branded a sex crime. The court likewise acquitted the defendant, holding that 'the mere inclusion of sexual words does not establish a sexual purpose.' The risk of wrongful accusation appears most clearly when the intent behind words is misunderstood and over-interpreted in this way.