always fascinating to see people who are real intense about "defending freedom of speech" but only if people are using that freedom to be a dick on the internet
especially when the actual scenario the conversation is about has jack shit to do with freedom of speech
Invertin on
+19
OctoberRavenPlays fighting games for the storySkyeline Hotel Apartment 4ARegistered Userregular
always fascinating to see people who are real intense about "defending freedom of speech" but only if people are using that freedom to be a dick on the internet
especially when the actual scenario the conversation is about has jack shit to do with freedom of speech
It's also funny because in my admittedly limited dealings with that ilk they seem to preach 'your rights end where mine begin'.
Oddly they're less interested in when it's the other way around.
Currently Most Hype For: VTMB2, Tiny Tina's Wonderlands, Alan Wake 2 (Wake Harder)Currently Playin: Guilty Gear XX AC+R, Gat Out Of Hell
Trolling is usually when someone posts something they don't particularly believe (either the opposite of what they believe, or they are ambivalent on the topic) in order to provoke outrage.
I think this poster actually believes what they're writing, no matter how logically incoherent it is.
+1
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Dang, I guess the SJWs have finally turned penny arcade against comedy.
O_o
The guy literally broke the law and company policy by recording inside a bathroom. That is an excellent reason to ban someone!
Sure but pretending his character is not a character is exactly the same as pretending penny arcade’s jokes are endorsements of “rape culture”. The SJWs have won on this front.
There is no "sure but" when breaking the law in this manner.
Dang, I guess the SJWs have finally turned penny arcade against comedy.
O_o
The guy literally broke the law and company policy by recording inside a bathroom. That is an excellent reason to ban someone!
Sure but pretending his character is not a character is exactly the same as pretending penny arcade’s jokes are endorsements of “rape culture”. The SJWs have won on this front.
Playing a character does not mean the character goes to jail instead of you when you break the law.
Actors (as opposed to internet jackasses) who do acts live around people like this (be it a candid shot like the "nuclear wessels" scene or a full act like Sacha Baron Cohen doing much of anything) take a key precaution to ensure they don't go to jail: They don't do anything even vaguely potentially illegal to people who aren't part of the act.
Hevach on
+13
OctoberRavenPlays fighting games for the storySkyeline Hotel Apartment 4ARegistered Userregular
edited June 2019
Also: Doing the math, according to Twitch executive, all of eternity is 11 days.
June 25 is National Catfish Day.
Beware the Catfish, for they represent the end of times.
OctoberRaven on
Currently Most Hype For: VTMB2, Tiny Tina's Wonderlands, Alan Wake 2 (Wake Harder)Currently Playin: Guilty Gear XX AC+R, Gat Out Of Hell
Gentle reminder that the one person posting a stupid opinion is rarely as disruptive as the twelve people dunking on them for it
They might think they’re dunking on me but they haven’t convinced me of anything I didn’t already explicitly agree with. Obviously no one is defending the bathroom stuff but the piling on happening to doc by penny arcade about him OTHERWISE is obviously the same exact treatment penny arcade receives. Two things can be true at once. It’s possible that doc can do something wrong and also possible that people can be wrong about him at the same time.
he broke the law and violated terms of service and he was banned, then mike and jerry made a strip about how companies are greedy
I may think his persona is grating but there's like... two posts that said anything other than "dude broke the law, who cares?"
Yeah I had to reread the comic. Other than the obvious assumption Dr. D an edgelord pubg player would fuck up again I don't really see any judgement beyond what the guy himself invites on himself?
Kurt Vonnegut said it best “We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.”
And absent all of that, absent his past history, the current crime is enough if done by like innocent as the driven snow mega popular twitch person did it, they too should get permabanned. 4! Times recording in a restroom, 4!
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
he broke the law and violated terms of service and he was banned, then mike and jerry made a strip about how companies are greedy
I may think his persona is grating but there's like... two posts that said anything other than "dude broke the law, who cares?"
It's not just that companies are greedy, but that companies like Twitch and YouTube have hitched their entire business models onto the backs of idiot 20-something guys who think that poorly copying Howard Stern is brilliant humor. To say nothing of the actual toxic assholes who help push people down the alt-right rabbit hole. This particular guy violated the California penal code, and got, what, an 11 or so day ban? It's pretty clear that the platforms are afraid to rock the boat and lose out on all the disposable cash 12-19 year olds have in their possession.
I haven't checked the comments in ages, and of course the time I decide to check there's some obtuse individual shaking their first at the clouds about SJWs and free speech and the death of comedy. Jesus, take the wheel.
I haven't checked the comments in ages, and of course the time I decide to check there's some obtuse individual shaking their first at the clouds about SJWs and free speech and the death of comedy. Jesus, take the wheel.
Six more years of no comments, eh?
0
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
My problem with the situation is that a lot of facts on the situation are being spun to extremes. I feel like it needs to be broken down for anyone that wants to build a fully informed opinion on this.
What Happened? What do we know?
-Twitch Personality Doctor Disrespect had his camera crew follow him into a public restroom for the purpose of a joke of the absurdity of a camera crew following a celebrity into a public bathroom.
-Other individuals, who had not consented to being recorded, were in the bathroom. This included a child. These people are all objectively victims of his crime.
-Bringing a recording camera into a public restroom without permit or otherwise authority from the facility owner is illegal. This is irrefutable and deserves repercussions
-The length of the offending footage is roughly 40 seconds.
-As of typing this post No party has pressed charges against Doctor Disrespect. Any individual in that bathroom can be considered a victim, and the have the evidence for an open-and-shut-case. If they do not come forward as a victim (This, very importantly, can include the venue!) then this can be considered "a victim-less crime" by some, but that's dependent on your own personal philosophy.
What didn't happen.
-Other individuals in the bathroom were not the focus of the footage. Dr. Disrespect did not at any point take his camera crew to focus on anyone other than himself. Other people, adults or children were not directly filmed. This is the story I've seen being pushed, and it's not correct.
What we don't know.
-We do not know if the camera man acted independently, or under Dr. Disrespect's orders. While this does not change the legality of the situation, it does add important context to the nature of the event and who is exactly as fault.
-We do not know if Dr. Disrespect and/or his camera are aware of the restroom filming law. Like it or not, knowledge of a violation of vital importance when looking at any case. Full brutality of the law is not brought down on acts of ignorance as much as acts of intentional defiance, and any fair justice system will take this under consideration. As far as "common sense" goes, this is when you get into these complex "has the law caught up with society and technology?" discussions. "There wasn't a sign saying so" can be all the defense you need on occasion, and technically is not incorrect.
Ultimately, what happened was objectively illegal, and objectively deserves repercussion, but that's no excuse for ignorance of what exactly happened and it's NEVER an excuse for spinning an exaggerated false narrative on the facts.
We should be pushing the objective fact that Dr Disrespect filmed in a bathroom, which included multiple individuals, both adults and children, and that it was illegal.
We should also push the fact that the offending footage had no nefarious intent. But still illegal.
We should not be pushing a narrative that Dr. Disrespect went into a bathroom and, with intent deliberately focused on a child at a urinal, as that is not factual.
Context is important. Be informed. Don't let you opinions on someone's content inflect your judgement on facts.
Otherwise we may all be perverted into Penny Arcade's agenda to teach us that rape culture is okay and it's okay to rape people left and right like the dick wolves so aggressively encouraged. (An actual false narrative being pushed about Penny Arcade years back.)
Context is important. Be informed of what actually happened. Many things in this world are in fact, binary, right and wrong issues, but what is often never a binary issue is the situation around these issues, and there's where people wrench in falsehoods.
I am not surprised people are conflating this with the death of comedy because, the internet. I am genuinely baffled by the comparison to dickwolves though. The difference is a very thick line that should be pretty obvious. This streamer didn't joke about filming in a bathroom. He filmed in a bathroom. That was a real thing that happened.
I am generally dismissive of the defense "lol just kidding" when someone says something terrible. But I can at least understand it. There's no defense "just kidding" when you do something. If you do it, you're not kidding. If you're not on a set, you're not acting. Sasha Cohen doesn't make jokes about being a weird jerk in public places. He is a weird jerk in public places. Since he doesn't do anything illegal or harmful, I can't really call foul and if people find it funny I don't begrudge them. But don't pretend like he's acting unless the people's response is actually fake (which would defeat the whole point). If a single person involved is not fictional, the work is not fictional and loses that defense of its content.
I am not surprised people are conflating this with the death of comedy because, the internet. I am genuinely baffled by the comparison to dickwolves though. The difference is a very thick line that should be pretty obvious. This streamer didn't joke about filming in a bathroom. He filmed in a bathroom. That was a real thing that happened.
I 100% acknowledge there is a massive divide between this situation and dickwolves.
Dickwolves happened in a 100% fictional jpg. This happened in reality, on film. Live. The difference is obvious.
The point of referencing dickwolves is the point that context is important and not to be part of spreading misinformation.
Dickwolves was, and for many, still is, a rallying flag for people, who often were not fans of Penny Arcade already, to spread a narrative that Penny Arcade supports rape culture. This was not only hurtful to the brand of Penny Arcade but also was not a factual one if you know the context. What the comic was as a joke about badguys in a videogame employing rape wolves, which, objectively, can offend rape victums. Reading the offending comic wasn't important to these people. What was important is being offended and spreading the most offensive narrative that can possibly be implied, regardless of facts of context. It was about spreading a lie. Spreading a lie that Penny Arcade endorses rape.
I'm seeing the same happen to Dr. Disrespect. He objectively went into a bathroom and filmed, and that's illegal. He's being spun, by his haters, as someone who barges into bathroom to specifically film children at the urinal. This is not factual. But it's about spreading a lie, a lie that Dr. Disrespect goes into bathrooms specifically to film children.
This isn't about "the death of comedy" or about SJWs vs Anti-SJWs. I just want the facts and the context of these situations to be at the forefront of people's minds. Fight against those who would pervert the truth of any incident into something that serves a purpose of hate against an individual or brand.
-Other individuals in the bathroom were not the focus of the footage. Dr. Disrespect did not at any point take his camera crew to focus on anyone other than himself. Other people, adults or children were not directly filmed. This is the story I've seen being pushed, and it's not correct.
Not really, no. This isn't how people are understanding this. It may be how YOU condescendingly think everyone else understands this. People generally know that he was live-streaming himself. It also doesn't matter if you are "focusing on yourself"... no one cares. This is still terrible.
-We do not know if Dr. Disrespect and/or his camera are aware of the restroom filming law. Like it or not, knowledge of a violation of vital importance when looking at any case. Full brutality of the law is not brought down on acts of ignorance as much as acts of intentional defiance, and any fair justice system will take this under consideration. As far as "common sense" goes, this is when you get into these complex "has the law caught up with society and technology?" discussions. "There wasn't a sign saying so" can be all the defense you need on occasion, and technically is not incorrect.
Ignorance of a law does not provide protection against it. The fact that there IS a law is somewhat academic, secondary to the fact that he brought a fucking camera crew into a bathroom to film.
We should also push the fact that the offending footage had no nefarious intent. But still illegal.
We are under no such obligation to divine the intent of what he did. OF COURSE, he thinks he's a good guy... everyone does! Of course he's going to say he had no nefarious intent! He doesn't want to get in trouble. Every HR presentation on harassment will tell you that intent doesn't matter. Actions matter. You can't use "intent" as a "fact".
BUT PENNY ARCADE DICKWOLVES RABBLE RABBLE...
This also doesn't matter in this case, and it's hilarious that people keep bringing it up. Filming in a public restroom while it's occupied is a completely different matter.
We don't need to be pushing anything because we are not a place where we try to push any particular narrative. PA forums isn't 4chan. There's nothing to coordinate or push or anything else.
Here's the thing - the dude broke both the law and Twitch's TOS. In a pretty egregious way, too (seriously, who decides to just barge into a public restroom and film it?). That deserves more than a slap on the wrist, IMO, but because Twitch has hitched its wagon to people like him, it's not going to happen.
I really don't think we need to relitigate dickwolves in this thread
It's a fascinating discussion though! No hate intended. Society is beautifully complex and fun to debate because there is often no right answer! It's great!
Not really, no. This isn't how people are understanding this. It may be how YOU condescendingly think everyone else understands this. People generally know that he was live-streaming himself. It also doesn't matter if you are "focusing on yourself"... no one cares. This is still terrible.
Context is important. For example, I never once defended Doctor Dr. Disrespect, I am simply relaying exactly the content of the offending video for those that have not watched it. Watching the video is something any rational individual would have to do before passing judgement.
The video confirms he broke the law.
The video does not focus on any other other individual.
Context is important for knowing the truth and debunking false narratives. That's the start and end of my platform.
Dr. Disrespect broke the law and should be punished appropriately for it. It's up to the individual to deem how harsh the penalty should be, but any individual should base it on the content of the video. Any one of us can all too easily fall on the wrong end of that's "Technically in the wrong, but context is ignored" conundrums.
I really don't think we need to relitigate dickwolves in this thread
It's a fascinating discussion though! No hate intended. Society is beautifully complex and fun to debate because there is often no right answer! It's great!
I'm sure it's a really fascinating discussion if it didn't completely implode your life for two years.
@Dennis: Well, we may have different definitions of "troll." My point in any case was this: a person who is intentionally trying to pick a fight, and a person who is actually trying to discuss something but has no idea how to be charitable, nuanced, or productive about it, have roughly the same value to a thread.
-We do not know if Dr. Disrespect and/or his camera are aware of the restroom filming law. Like it or not, knowledge of a violation of vital importance when looking at any case. Full brutality of the law is not brought down on acts of ignorance as much as acts of intentional defiance, and any fair justice system will take this under consideration.
Just as a heads up, this is *not* how the US justice system works, or indeed most any justice system. Ignorance of the law is not a defense - it's considered the responsibility of the citizen to be knowledgeable about laws in places they go, and to act accordingly. Breaking a law because you didn't realize you were isn't going to stop you from being prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Other factors might, but ignorance won't.
+18
Andy JoeWe claim the land for the highlord!The AdirondacksRegistered Userregular
We should also push the fact that the offending footage had no nefarious intent. But still illegal.
Legally, a person is considered to intend the natural consequence of their actions. A natural consequence of streaming from a public restroom at a busy venue would be capturing and uploading video footage of numerous people , and numerous types of people, using that restroom. Therefore, I cannot agree with your contention that the footage was made without nefarious intent.
- From much of the reporting I've seen (though organizations like CNN or the New York Times aren't covering it, so I can't be 100% sure of the veracity), he not only streamed from the bathroom once, but four times. Was it only films once and the rest were audio-only?
---
-As of typing this post No party has pressed charges against Doctor Disrespect. Any individual in that bathroom can be considered a victim, and the have the evidence for an open-and-shut-case. If they do not come forward as a victim (This, very importantly, can include the venue!) then this can be considered "a victim-less crime" by some, but that's dependent on your own personal philosophy.
File under "things you don't know" how "pressing charges" works. In criminal cases, the local, state or federal government charge someone with a crime. Whether a victim wants them to be charged or not has jack-all to do with it. They're a witness as part of a trial, not a decider on whether or not someone gets away with it. The only real deciding factor is if the primary evidence is eyewitness testimony, without which the prosecutor wouldn't be able to make their case.
If someone is driving their car and swerves toward a pedestrian and misses them, and the pedestrian says "hey, that's okay, I don't want the guy to get in trouble", the attorneys aren't just going to say "oh well, I guess it was a victim-less crime." They're going to prosecute (if there is evidence, like, say, the person live-streaming it to the world), because we don't want people who would drive recklessly to be on the street. Likewise, we don't want people to bring a camera into a bathroom and wave it around even if those particular people decided to not speak up about it for whatever reason. I'd rather prevent someone from thinking they could do that rather than have the damage done and then have to deal with it.
-As of typing this post No party has pressed charges against Doctor Disrespect. Any individual in that bathroom can be considered a victim, and the have the evidence for an open-and-shut-case. If they do not come forward as a victim (This, very importantly, can include the venue!) then this can be considered "a victim-less crime" by some, but that's dependent on your own personal philosophy.
This seems like extremely spurious logic. They might not be pressing charges because they don't know about the stream. They might not be pressing charges because they're embarrassed about it and don't want to identify themselves. They might not be pressing charges because they're experienced enough about the internet to know that pressing charges against a popular streamer would likely lead to being inundated with harassment and death threats.
It in no means justifies anything as a victim-less crime.
Thanks to everyone who is calmly explaining the situation to the best of their ability. I didn't know anything and based on the first half of comments I definitely thought Dr. Disrespect was filming children in the bathroom on purpose (I'm talking about camera focus here), so thanks to SharpEdge for clearing that up. I also understand the analogy they made about exaggeration leading to false information.
Likewise, SharpEdge seems like the type of person who will be thankful to others who cleared up some of their misconceptions regarding legal procedure. All I can say about that is that in my country, which is not the US, a judge will definitely take intent into account when deciding the length or weight of the punishment visited upon a guilty party, and the law provides different punishment ceilings for intent vs negligence in various situations (other factors, like antecedents, are also taken into account). Obviously this has nothing to do with culpability; if they're found guilty, they're guilty, regardless of intent, and will be punished by the legal system.
There's no need for people to get overly emotional about a civil exchange of information. I only see one person here with fairly outlandish ideas about the death of comedy and stuff like that.
+1
H3KnucklesBut we decide which is rightand which is an illusion.Registered Userregular
edited June 2019
@FTV Yes, almost anything creative is going to offend somebody. And when they get offended, they will air their grievance and expect something to be done about it. Others will be exposed to their complaint and form their own opinion on the matter, and if a large enough proportion of the creation's potential audience agrees that it is too offensive than the creator/performer will suffer negative consequences.
This isn't anything new. This is literally how society and culture work, and have worked, since forever. Being a creator or performer means being brave enough to put something (or yourself) out there and risk the criticism, and then making a series of judgment calls of when to ignore complaints or when to be contrite and make changes. The only thing that's changed is that the internet has made it more likely for people to feel safe to air their frustrations and easier to find like-minded communities.
But you need to understand that there is no culture war. There is no unified front of hand-wringing reactionaries out to ruin everything you enjoy. SJW's are an absurd straw-man caricature. If anyone has adopted the term, they are doing it ironically, to mock those who attack them for speaking up about what they believe. People with leftist and/or progressive leanings don't always agree with one another (see Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists), and occasionally make mistakes as well, at which point others have to call their attention to it. The willingness to have these discussions is essential to making things better, and how people react to criticism says a lot about whether they can be a positive part of a community.
Buying into the 'culture war' rhetoric being pushed by certain media groups and online communities is to make yourself an easy mark for bigots and demagogues with agendas.
While Dr Disrespect remains banned from Twitch for a still-unknown period of time, he’s resumed posting to Twitter and YouTube. Last Thursday, he broke his silence with a tweet promising an E3 recap video and saying he’d “fired” his director, whose name is apparently Alex. This, however, was likely a reference to a long-running joke in which Doc yells off-screen at Alex—who fans aren’t even sure is a real person—and sometimes “fires” him. Dr Disrespect proceeded to spend the next 24 hours talking trash to other big streamers (mostly Ninja) on Twitter.
Dr Disrespect has also used his mandatory time off to create new Twitch emotes of himself peeking out from a bathroom stall.
Taunting a district attorney who has a slam dunk case against you (thanks to your own actions) is not the wisest course of action here.
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
edited June 2019
Wait, Dr. Disrespect isn't a made-up person?
Edit: Tycho's write-up is pretty good.
So if DrDisrespect repeatedly livestreams people in the bathroom at E3, over and over again, and eventually they get around to putting him on time-out, it’s good that they did that. Because what he did was fucking weird, and gross, in ways that may project into the legal sphere. But when I saw a kid in there, a kid of maybe ten fucking livestreamed from a urinal, this all ceased to be a novel intellectual exercise and instead become something more like an icicle pushed slowly through my left eye.
I have suggested before that your politics consist of those things which you consider outside the realm of politics. I will never write about what occurred to me when I saw that, as a man and a father, burning in the knowledge that what he did doesn’t matter at all.
It doesn’t matter at all. Because we toil and writhe in the dumbest age yet, it’s possible that someone might think I’m saying it’s not important. I’m not saying that, though. What I’m saying is that it materially, observably doesn’t matter insofar as he’ll be back on bigger than ever, sooner than you think, his bad boy credentials only burnished by his stint in detention. By his nominal exile. By what is functionally a vacation. What our masters feel for us can’t even be called contempt, because that would imply conscious recognition. What we are is a number lower than another number, his number, and therefore somewhere below the human threshold.
Cambiata on
Peace to fashion police, I wear my heart
On my sleeve, let the runway start
Posts
especially when the actual scenario the conversation is about has jack shit to do with freedom of speech
It's also funny because in my admittedly limited dealings with that ilk they seem to preach 'your rights end where mine begin'.
Oddly they're less interested in when it's the other way around.
Trolling is usually when someone posts something they don't particularly believe (either the opposite of what they believe, or they are ambivalent on the topic) in order to provoke outrage.
I think this poster actually believes what they're writing, no matter how logically incoherent it is.
Playing a character does not mean the character goes to jail instead of you when you break the law.
Actors (as opposed to internet jackasses) who do acts live around people like this (be it a candid shot like the "nuclear wessels" scene or a full act like Sacha Baron Cohen doing much of anything) take a key precaution to ensure they don't go to jail: They don't do anything even vaguely potentially illegal to people who aren't part of the act.
June 25 is National Catfish Day.
Beware the Catfish, for they represent the end of times.
Those suckers do reach 'world-ending' size.
Oh hey, it's that guy that made the one level of Yoshi's Island a damn nightmare.
They might think they’re dunking on me but they haven’t convinced me of anything I didn’t already explicitly agree with. Obviously no one is defending the bathroom stuff but the piling on happening to doc by penny arcade about him OTHERWISE is obviously the same exact treatment penny arcade receives. Two things can be true at once. It’s possible that doc can do something wrong and also possible that people can be wrong about him at the same time.
he broke the law and violated terms of service and he was banned, then mike and jerry made a strip about how companies are greedy
I may think his persona is grating but there's like... two posts that said anything other than "dude broke the law, who cares?"
Yeah I had to reread the comic. Other than the obvious assumption Dr. D an edgelord pubg player would fuck up again I don't really see any judgement beyond what the guy himself invites on himself?
Kurt Vonnegut said it best “We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.”
And absent all of that, absent his past history, the current crime is enough if done by like innocent as the driven snow mega popular twitch person did it, they too should get permabanned. 4! Times recording in a restroom, 4!
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's not just that companies are greedy, but that companies like Twitch and YouTube have hitched their entire business models onto the backs of idiot 20-something guys who think that poorly copying Howard Stern is brilliant humor. To say nothing of the actual toxic assholes who help push people down the alt-right rabbit hole. This particular guy violated the California penal code, and got, what, an 11 or so day ban? It's pretty clear that the platforms are afraid to rock the boat and lose out on all the disposable cash 12-19 year olds have in their possession.
I don't care for the new art style on Futurama.
-Tycho Brahe
Six more years of no comments, eh?
Looks like Bobby Hill and Bender are together for the first time.
Finally.
What Happened? What do we know?
-Twitch Personality Doctor Disrespect had his camera crew follow him into a public restroom for the purpose of a joke of the absurdity of a camera crew following a celebrity into a public bathroom.
-Other individuals, who had not consented to being recorded, were in the bathroom. This included a child. These people are all objectively victims of his crime.
-Bringing a recording camera into a public restroom without permit or otherwise authority from the facility owner is illegal. This is irrefutable and deserves repercussions
-The length of the offending footage is roughly 40 seconds.
-As of typing this post No party has pressed charges against Doctor Disrespect. Any individual in that bathroom can be considered a victim, and the have the evidence for an open-and-shut-case. If they do not come forward as a victim (This, very importantly, can include the venue!) then this can be considered "a victim-less crime" by some, but that's dependent on your own personal philosophy.
What didn't happen.
-Other individuals in the bathroom were not the focus of the footage. Dr. Disrespect did not at any point take his camera crew to focus on anyone other than himself. Other people, adults or children were not directly filmed. This is the story I've seen being pushed, and it's not correct.
What we don't know.
-We do not know if the camera man acted independently, or under Dr. Disrespect's orders. While this does not change the legality of the situation, it does add important context to the nature of the event and who is exactly as fault.
-We do not know if Dr. Disrespect and/or his camera are aware of the restroom filming law. Like it or not, knowledge of a violation of vital importance when looking at any case. Full brutality of the law is not brought down on acts of ignorance as much as acts of intentional defiance, and any fair justice system will take this under consideration. As far as "common sense" goes, this is when you get into these complex "has the law caught up with society and technology?" discussions. "There wasn't a sign saying so" can be all the defense you need on occasion, and technically is not incorrect.
Ultimately, what happened was objectively illegal, and objectively deserves repercussion, but that's no excuse for ignorance of what exactly happened and it's NEVER an excuse for spinning an exaggerated false narrative on the facts.
We should be pushing the objective fact that Dr Disrespect filmed in a bathroom, which included multiple individuals, both adults and children, and that it was illegal.
We should also push the fact that the offending footage had no nefarious intent. But still illegal.
We should not be pushing a narrative that Dr. Disrespect went into a bathroom and, with intent deliberately focused on a child at a urinal, as that is not factual.
Context is important. Be informed. Don't let you opinions on someone's content inflect your judgement on facts.
Otherwise we may all be perverted into Penny Arcade's agenda to teach us that rape culture is okay and it's okay to rape people left and right like the dick wolves so aggressively encouraged. (An actual false narrative being pushed about Penny Arcade years back.)
Context is important. Be informed of what actually happened. Many things in this world are in fact, binary, right and wrong issues, but what is often never a binary issue is the situation around these issues, and there's where people wrench in falsehoods.
I am generally dismissive of the defense "lol just kidding" when someone says something terrible. But I can at least understand it. There's no defense "just kidding" when you do something. If you do it, you're not kidding. If you're not on a set, you're not acting. Sasha Cohen doesn't make jokes about being a weird jerk in public places. He is a weird jerk in public places. Since he doesn't do anything illegal or harmful, I can't really call foul and if people find it funny I don't begrudge them. But don't pretend like he's acting unless the people's response is actually fake (which would defeat the whole point). If a single person involved is not fictional, the work is not fictional and loses that defense of its content.
I 100% acknowledge there is a massive divide between this situation and dickwolves.
Dickwolves happened in a 100% fictional jpg. This happened in reality, on film. Live. The difference is obvious.
The point of referencing dickwolves is the point that context is important and not to be part of spreading misinformation.
Dickwolves was, and for many, still is, a rallying flag for people, who often were not fans of Penny Arcade already, to spread a narrative that Penny Arcade supports rape culture. This was not only hurtful to the brand of Penny Arcade but also was not a factual one if you know the context. What the comic was as a joke about badguys in a videogame employing rape wolves, which, objectively, can offend rape victums. Reading the offending comic wasn't important to these people. What was important is being offended and spreading the most offensive narrative that can possibly be implied, regardless of facts of context. It was about spreading a lie. Spreading a lie that Penny Arcade endorses rape.
I'm seeing the same happen to Dr. Disrespect. He objectively went into a bathroom and filmed, and that's illegal. He's being spun, by his haters, as someone who barges into bathroom to specifically film children at the urinal. This is not factual. But it's about spreading a lie, a lie that Dr. Disrespect goes into bathrooms specifically to film children.
This isn't about "the death of comedy" or about SJWs vs Anti-SJWs. I just want the facts and the context of these situations to be at the forefront of people's minds. Fight against those who would pervert the truth of any incident into something that serves a purpose of hate against an individual or brand.
Ignorance of a law does not provide protection against it. The fact that there IS a law is somewhat academic, secondary to the fact that he brought a fucking camera crew into a bathroom to film.
We are under no such obligation to divine the intent of what he did. OF COURSE, he thinks he's a good guy... everyone does! Of course he's going to say he had no nefarious intent! He doesn't want to get in trouble. Every HR presentation on harassment will tell you that intent doesn't matter. Actions matter. You can't use "intent" as a "fact".
BUT PENNY ARCADE DICKWOLVES RABBLE RABBLE...
This also doesn't matter in this case, and it's hilarious that people keep bringing it up. Filming in a public restroom while it's occupied is a completely different matter.
Here's the thing - the dude broke both the law and Twitch's TOS. In a pretty egregious way, too (seriously, who decides to just barge into a public restroom and film it?). That deserves more than a slap on the wrist, IMO, but because Twitch has hitched its wagon to people like him, it's not going to happen.
It's a fascinating discussion though! No hate intended. Society is beautifully complex and fun to debate because there is often no right answer! It's great!
Context is important. For example, I never once defended Doctor Dr. Disrespect, I am simply relaying exactly the content of the offending video for those that have not watched it. Watching the video is something any rational individual would have to do before passing judgement.
The video confirms he broke the law.
The video does not focus on any other other individual.
Context is important for knowing the truth and debunking false narratives. That's the start and end of my platform.
Dr. Disrespect broke the law and should be punished appropriately for it. It's up to the individual to deem how harsh the penalty should be, but any individual should base it on the content of the video. Any one of us can all too easily fall on the wrong end of that's "Technically in the wrong, but context is ignored" conundrums.
I'm sure it's a really fascinating discussion if it didn't completely implode your life for two years.
-Tycho Brahe
pleasepaypreacher.net
I went back and retroactively appreciated it. Good reference with double linkage. A+ work.
Just as a heads up, this is *not* how the US justice system works, or indeed most any justice system. Ignorance of the law is not a defense - it's considered the responsibility of the citizen to be knowledgeable about laws in places they go, and to act accordingly. Breaking a law because you didn't realize you were isn't going to stop you from being prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Other factors might, but ignorance won't.
Legally, a person is considered to intend the natural consequence of their actions. A natural consequence of streaming from a public restroom at a busy venue would be capturing and uploading video footage of numerous people , and numerous types of people, using that restroom. Therefore, I cannot agree with your contention that the footage was made without nefarious intent.
- From much of the reporting I've seen (though organizations like CNN or the New York Times aren't covering it, so I can't be 100% sure of the veracity), he not only streamed from the bathroom once, but four times. Was it only films once and the rest were audio-only?
---
File under "things you don't know" how "pressing charges" works. In criminal cases, the local, state or federal government charge someone with a crime. Whether a victim wants them to be charged or not has jack-all to do with it. They're a witness as part of a trial, not a decider on whether or not someone gets away with it. The only real deciding factor is if the primary evidence is eyewitness testimony, without which the prosecutor wouldn't be able to make their case.
If someone is driving their car and swerves toward a pedestrian and misses them, and the pedestrian says "hey, that's okay, I don't want the guy to get in trouble", the attorneys aren't just going to say "oh well, I guess it was a victim-less crime." They're going to prosecute (if there is evidence, like, say, the person live-streaming it to the world), because we don't want people who would drive recklessly to be on the street. Likewise, we don't want people to bring a camera into a bathroom and wave it around even if those particular people decided to not speak up about it for whatever reason. I'd rather prevent someone from thinking they could do that rather than have the damage done and then have to deal with it.
This seems like extremely spurious logic. They might not be pressing charges because they don't know about the stream. They might not be pressing charges because they're embarrassed about it and don't want to identify themselves. They might not be pressing charges because they're experienced enough about the internet to know that pressing charges against a popular streamer would likely lead to being inundated with harassment and death threats.
It in no means justifies anything as a victim-less crime.
Likewise, SharpEdge seems like the type of person who will be thankful to others who cleared up some of their misconceptions regarding legal procedure. All I can say about that is that in my country, which is not the US, a judge will definitely take intent into account when deciding the length or weight of the punishment visited upon a guilty party, and the law provides different punishment ceilings for intent vs negligence in various situations (other factors, like antecedents, are also taken into account). Obviously this has nothing to do with culpability; if they're found guilty, they're guilty, regardless of intent, and will be punished by the legal system.
There's no need for people to get overly emotional about a civil exchange of information. I only see one person here with fairly outlandish ideas about the death of comedy and stuff like that.
This isn't anything new. This is literally how society and culture work, and have worked, since forever. Being a creator or performer means being brave enough to put something (or yourself) out there and risk the criticism, and then making a series of judgment calls of when to ignore complaints or when to be contrite and make changes. The only thing that's changed is that the internet has made it more likely for people to feel safe to air their frustrations and easier to find like-minded communities.
But you need to understand that there is no culture war. There is no unified front of hand-wringing reactionaries out to ruin everything you enjoy. SJW's are an absurd straw-man caricature. If anyone has adopted the term, they are doing it ironically, to mock those who attack them for speaking up about what they believe. People with leftist and/or progressive leanings don't always agree with one another (see Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists), and occasionally make mistakes as well, at which point others have to call their attention to it. The willingness to have these discussions is essential to making things better, and how people react to criticism says a lot about whether they can be a positive part of a community.
Buying into the 'culture war' rhetoric being pushed by certain media groups and online communities is to make yourself an easy mark for bigots and demagogues with agendas.
Taunting a district attorney who has a slam dunk case against you (thanks to your own actions) is not the wisest course of action here.
Edit: Tycho's write-up is pretty good.
On my sleeve, let the runway start