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

@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.