Re: Should Apex streamers being toxic on stream be banned from the game?

@BaldWraithSimp That's ''discussing moderation'' and cause for a 5th. 😉

@Vdstrk No they shouldn't imo but it's the direction we're going nowadays.

Anyone can sit in their house and say what they like and it shouldn't matter if i have a worldwide audience online, my windows open and the neighbourhood hear me or my partner film me privately while i rage or say something toxic (to chill and positive for that! 😇) and get reported. Freedom of speech, and if the person feels offended then they don't have to listen as it's not to them.

Unless it's a sponsored stream, directly to the person through game channels, illegal or breaks the TOS on that specific platform then say what you like but even that can get you the hammer when keeping within the rules due to overbearing moderation.

@apostolateofDOOM

The issue I have with it is the expectation of privacy. Sure, a person in their home should be able to enjoy a greater degree of freedom than when in public.
There is a large grey area concerning social media, which has not yet been clarified.
Now, for what you describe of being at home. It depends. If you leave your windows open, and for sake of example "you make statements about harming yourself of others", and your neighbor overhears it and calls the police, the police CAN intervene. That is because the open window limits the expectation of privacy a person has in their own house.

Sure if there is a streaming platform's ToS breach, an intervention is completely justified.
This brings me to the stream. Is it private or public, or publicly accessible?
I'd venture to say that it is a publicly accessible show, and because of the limited expectation of privacy a person has while streaming, I would say that if reported or caught by a ToS member, actions braking the ToS of the game the streamer is playing are enforceable.
It has happened often that streamers have been swatted,even if under false accusations quite a few times. If those reports were enough to elicit a police response, I do not see why a derogatory statement towards another player would not be cause for intervention by the ToS team, if that derogatory statement happns to breach the ToS.

A while ago I saw a video of an activist in Florida who made a statement on her FaceBook page about "dumping garbage on a politician's front yard" specifically it was about disposable face masks.
The police contacted the activist and warned her about the consequences of her statement. They simply warned the activist in an attempt to not escalate a situation, but they would have been in full capacity to make an arrest, and a citation for littering, and some other connected charges.
Scary to say the list. The reason behind it was the fact that the page is visible to anyone who happens to visit it, and for that there is a loss of expectation of privacy.

@Vdstrk Protection for yourself and/or others from harm is a duty of care that's enshrined and enforced by law and the consequence of that tweet would make them legally responsible, as they were the cause of the littering, but public or private, in this case, shouldn't make a difference.

You still have the freedom to insult in public and i think it's concerning if people don't feel they can speak out or are bound by publisher laws, if they're not representing a company. You should feel free to be open with the right to say what you, i or anyone likes and based on tolerance, not respect.

@apostolateofDOOM

This is not to disagree. Just to provide context to what I mentioned above.There may be something missing. I am posting this while playing..

Yes, the freedom of speech is in place on public owned spaces, or buildings, can be restricted because people can be trespassed on public property depending on the type of governmental property as described in the Protection of Governmental property 18 U.S.C. 7, and as then spelled in section 7 of Title 18 of the US Federal code. I am not able to use "unconventional research methods" to provide more details about federal owned property. It is complicated, and extremely time consuming to perform. The fact is, that a person can be deprived of their freedom of speech by for example being trespassed on such property according to the above.

Say that a person enters a public office, a postal office for example and starts filming. Filming in public is protected by the 1st Amendment. However, the building falls under one of the subcategories from the above. The office calls the police that then intervene and trespasses the cameraman, effectively restricting his ability to continue filming and accessing the building.

Social media are not defined very well yet. Whatever is posted on social media can be used against a person (in the US)

United States v. Meregildo

The Supreme Court has long held that a person has a protected right to a reasonable expectation of privacy. The constitution protects this right. However, when it comes to social media, this expectation is not absolute and is frankly almost non-existent. This is because by design, many people can view the information.

Facebook users can control privacy settings and determine who sees their posts and other information. In United States v. Meregildo, Colon posted messages detailing acts of violence and threatening new violence to rival gangs. His Facebook apparently had strict privacy settings allowing only “friends” to view his posts.

This case shows however that even if a user does have strict privacy settings, and allows only “friends” to view posts, he or she cannot claim that this information is private. “Friends” share the content they have access to with whoever they want. This provided the government with access and probable cause in a search warrant application.

I doubt it would be outside the powers of a dev suspending an account of a streamer for insulting a player. They can suspend an account for no reason at all.

What I wandered originally is whether there is a double standard.

You can be rude in public, sure.But you cannot use "fighting words".
Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. ... Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment.

What is the point of being rude after all?

The police has no obligation to protect the public despite what is commonly thought.
DeShaney vs. Winnebago and Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales

The supreme court has ruled that police agencies are not obligated to provide protection of citizens. In other words, police are well within their rights to pick and choose when to intervene to protect the lives and property of others — even when a threat is apparent.

In conclusion. I would say that were EA/Respawn suspending accounts based on what is shown on a stream, they would be perfectly within their rights to do so. I would also say that it would give a clear example of what is expected when communicating while playing.

@hayhor Shifv  is BACK online today: https://www.twitch.tv/shivfps

or it could be FAKE EMAIL from TUFI ???

Shiv has received an email from Twitch about a 7 day suspension, however, it has not been implemented yet. The suspension is expected to happen today and Shiv is in the process of appealing that suspension. We do not know who reported Shiv and neither know the reason for his suspension. Please do not ask any further questions about it. #FreeShiv

He was on yesterday evening and night. So i doubt it was real at all. Most likely could be a false email as mentioned as twitch does not play they take action before you get the email. 

This is what happen when the anticheat got exposed for being useless for very long time and can't do anything, then the purge started.

@E9ine_AC

Shiv took "revenge" in his own hands, and got punished for it. All the talking he did was meant to accomplish nothing. It was just pure toxicity. Nothing good would have come from it. And nothing good has come from it.

Whether he defeated a cheater or not is irrelevant for the ToS of Twitch. And eventually, it is questionable how and why that famous cheater cannot be removed from the game once and for all. EAC probably does not work well enough?

The days of "taking the law in one's own hands" are long gone... They were never meant to be in the first place.