dr disrespect banned from Twitch (update: now back)

spootime

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
1,006
Have any Twitch bans ever stuck?

I wouldn’t be surprised if teens flock to streams with previous bans.
twitch has banned people permanently, if that's what you're asking. Ice Poseidon is still banned, for instance. I don't think twitch ever said that this Dr. Disrespect ban is permanent though. Probably just a week or something.
 

nikos

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,001
New York, NY
The intent means that they intended to do the action which breaches privacy, not that they wanted to be thrown in jail. Did the cameraman stumble accidentally into the bathroom multiple times? Did he not know that the camera was on?
They didn’t have intent to invade anybody’s privacy. They didn’t deliberately peek into stalls or have any concealed camera equipment. If anybody had an issue with the cameras, they could have said something. Nobody in the bathroom seemed to give a shit.

Taking the cameras into the bathroom may have been stupid, but it doesn’t seem like they broke laws. People should do research before throwing out such accusations.
 

Siggy-P

Avenger
Mar 18, 2018
4,623
I’m actually doing research on the law, as I’m not a resident of California and have never had to look into this sort of thing. It seems no laws were actually broken as public bathrooms are treated as public property and not covered under the same laws as private bathrooms.

The camera operator would’ve needed to have intent to invade one’s privacy in order to consider filming illegal.

Reference: https://www.losangelescriminallawyer.pro/california-penal-code-section-647-j-pc-invasion-of-privacy.html

I still don’t agree with bringing cameras into the restroom, I would have never done such a thing, but I like to put facts before feelings.
They went into the bathroom multiple times with the intent to film and filmed shots of mutliple people who were not part of their group at the urinals. Including a random child. It was absolutely an intent to invade privacy, no court would see it otherwise.

To break it down:

- They, without permission or warning, filmed strangers using urinals in a public bathroom. That is an invasion of privacy.

- They do so on purpose, numerous times. That is an intent.
 

KingM

Member
Oct 28, 2017
765
They didn’t have intent to invade anybody’s privacy. They didn’t deliberately peek into stalls or have any concealed camera equipment. If anybody had an issue with the cameras, they could have said something. Nobody in the bathroom seemed to give a shit.

Taking the cameras into the bathroom may have been stupid, but it doesn’t seem like they broke laws. People should do research before throwing out such accusations.
In california recording requires two party consent in a location where there is an expectation of privacy. A public restroom would likely fall under that. By going in to record multiple times into the area it shows he had intent to record people in the restroom so its not some accidental thing like taking a picture or a home and seeing someone sunbathing.
 

Eylos

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,024
They didn’t have intent to invade anybody’s privacy. They didn’t deliberately peek into stalls or have any concealed camera equipment. If anybody had an issue with the cameras, they could have said something. Nobody in the bathroom seemed to give a shit.
The intent is irrelevant in a bunch of crimes, but i will not study california law because of dr. disrespect to learn this and post here(nothing against california law)
 

Mastersmith98

Banned
Nov 6, 2018
18
In california recording requires two party consent in a location where there is an expectation of privacy. A public restroom would likely fall under that. By going in to record multiple times into the area it shows he had intent to record people in the restroom so its not some accidental thing like taking a picture or a home and seeing someone sunbathing.
Except for minors. Permission is always required in that case.
 

Malgus

Member
Oct 26, 2017
778
Toronto
I’m actually doing research on the law, as I’m not a resident of California and have never had to look into this sort of thing. It seems no laws were actually broken as public bathrooms are treated as public property and not covered under the same laws as private bathrooms.

The camera operator would’ve needed to have intent to invade one’s privacy in order to consider filming illegal.

Reference: https://www.losangelescriminallawyer.pro/california-penal-code-section-647-j-pc-invasion-of-privacy.html

I still don’t agree with bringing cameras into the restroom, I would have never done such a thing, but I like to put facts before feelings.
It was literally posted in the last page https://www.shouselaw.com/are-cameras-in-bathrooms-illegal-in-california

This is obviously going to be a slap on the wrist for him. What could ruin this assholes career is civil cases brought against him.

Anybody that was filmed in the restroom by his crew can file a civil case against him for breaching privacy laws.

Stop defending this piece of shit.
 

nikos

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,001
New York, NY
The intent is irrelevant in a bunch of crimes, but i will not study california law because of dr. disrespect to learn this and post here(nothing against california law)
I’m with you on that. I’ve done all of the research I’m willing to do at 2:30am.

What they did was silly, and possibly committed a misdemeanor. I’m sure no harm was intended, as “hot diarrhea” is a thing on his stream and it seemed comical at the moment. I’m sure it’s a temporary ban, and I’m sure he’ll enjoy his vacation.
 

Sei

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,277
LA
I’m actually doing research on the law, as I’m not a resident of California and have never had to look into this sort of thing. It seems no laws were actually broken as public bathrooms are treated as public property and not covered under the same laws as private bathrooms.

The camera operator would’ve needed to have intent to invade one’s privacy in order to consider filming illegal.

Reference: https://www.losangelescriminallawyer.pro/california-penal-code-section-647-j-pc-invasion-of-privacy.html

I still don’t agree with bringing cameras into the restroom, I would have never done such a thing, but I like to put facts before feelings.
In California you don't need intention, it's simply illegal to film in any location where another person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
https://www.shouselaw.com/invasion-of-privacy

Example: Mark, a gym employee, films Linda changing into her workout clothes in the locker room. Even though Mark has the legal right to be in the gym, he still violates this law because:
  1. Linda has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the locker room, and
  2. She has not consented to being filmed.
Even though they have a right to be in the bathroom, since they're attending E3. The other people inside the bathroom still have a reasonable expectations of privacy.
 

KS93

Member
Oct 26, 2017
522
I would have never done such a thing, but I like to put facts before feelings.
Eurrrrgh this is the lamest edgelord take of them all. A lesson on facts from somebody who's only knowledge is what they've Googled about the laws in California in the last ten minutes.
 

nikos

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,001
New York, NY
In California you don't need intention, it's simply illegal to film in any location where another person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
https://www.shouselaw.com/invasion-of-privacy



Even though they have a right to be in the bathroom, since they're attending E3. The other people inside the bathroom still have a reasonable expectations of privacy.
What occurred here doesn’t really fall under that law because there was no intention to invade privacy. They were in the restroom to film the Doc. They weren’t “peeping toms” or filming for personal sexual arousal.

The closest law that would apply is PC 647(j), however it states:

Criminal liability under Penal Code 647(j) requires the prosecutor to prove that the defendant intended to invade someone's privacy.

Furthermore, if the charge is Penal Code 647(j)(2), the prosecutor must prove that the defendant intended "to arouse, appeal to, or gratify lust, passions, or sexual desires."
I’m not defending what was done here because I don’t agree with filming in the bathroom to begin with.

How many people do we see taking selfies and videos in the bathroom anyway, should they all be taken to court?
 

Malgus

Member
Oct 26, 2017
778
Toronto
Eurrrrgh this is the lamest edgelord take of them all. A lesson on facts from somebody who's only knowledge is what they've Googled about the laws in California in the last ten minutes.
Especially when it's already been posted multiple times what law he broke. This guys vision is just clouded by his love for the streamer. Good to know there are people on here that support a racist.
 

Linus815

Member
Oct 29, 2017
3,822
What occurred here doesn’t really fall under that law because there was no intention to invade privacy. They were in the restroom to film the Doc. They weren’t “peeping toms” or filming for personal sexual arousal.

The closest law that would apply is PC 647(j), however it states:



I’m not defending what was done here because I don’t agree with filming in the bathroom to begin with.

How many people do we see taking selfies and videos in the bathroom anyway, should they all be taken to court?
Dude, there's a clip where the cameraman walks RIGHT behind people peeing and films them for like 15 second straight. Doc isn't even in the shot.
It is 100% invasion of privacy.
 

Punished Dan

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,455
Have any Twitch bans ever stuck?

I wouldn’t be surprised if teens flock to streams with previous bans.
A UK LoL streamer GrossGore got perma banned for harassment, it lasted the best part of 2 years.
I don’t know all the details but it was a perma ban, don’t know how he turned it around.
 

Siggy-P

Avenger
Mar 18, 2018
4,623
What occurred here doesn’t really fall under that law because there was no intention to invade privacy. They were in the restroom to film the Doc. They weren’t “peeping toms” or filming for personal sexual arousal.

The closest law that would apply is PC 647(j), however it states:



I’m not defending what was done here because I don’t agree with filming in the bathroom to begin with.

How many people do we see taking selfies and videos in the bathroom anyway, should they all be taken to court?
You don't seem to understand. Intent means to purposefully do something.

The invasion of privacy was filming these strangers using the urinals without their consent.

Therefore, he showed an intent to invade privacy. Because he purposefully with intent invaded their privacy.
 

nikos

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,001
New York, NY
Dude, there's a clip where the cameraman walks RIGHT behind people peeing and films them for like 15 second straight. Doc isn't even in the shot.
It is 100% invasion of privacy.
Could very well be, but that law seems to put an emphasis on sexual intent. I’m not an expert on the law, I’m doing research to engage in discussion because I was watching as it happened and find this to be an interesting topic.

I’m also not defending what the cameraman did because it was dumb.
 

Linus815

Member
Oct 29, 2017
3,822
Could very well be, but that law seems to put an emphasis on sexual intent. I’m not an expert on the law, I’m doing research to engage in discussion because I was watching as it happened and find this to be an interesting topic.

I’m also not defending what the cameraman did because it was dumb.
I don't see why that matters, it's clearly against twitch TOS to invade people's privacy, so that's why he got banned.
 

Linus815

Member
Oct 29, 2017
3,822
also I'd like to point out that he did this 3 or 4 times in 2 different bathrooms iirc. It's idiotic and the ban is deserved, and that comes from someone that loves Doc's content generally. I imagine he won't be attending e3's anytime soon either.
 

L Thammy

Spacenoid
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,423
They didn’t have intent to invade anybody’s privacy. They didn’t deliberately peek into stalls or have any concealed camera equipment. If anybody had an issue with the cameras, they could have said something. Nobody in the bathroom seemed to give a shit.

Taking the cameras into the bathroom may have been stupid, but it doesn’t seem like they broke laws. People should do research before throwing out such accusations.
They're filming people without their concent in a room where they are expected to have some level of privacy. They don't have to peek in the stalls because they're already pointing the camera at people in the bathroom. The camera doesn't have to be concealed and I don't know why you'd even have come up with that idea.

No amount of research will help you understand an issue that you've already chosen not to understand.
 

Mabec

Member
Oct 27, 2017
131
How did not the camera man know whats allowed and not? How could he blindly follow commands? I guess he didnt have any education in his own profession?
 

John Rabbit

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,462
Could very well be, but that law seems to put an emphasis on sexual intent. I’m not an expert on the law, I’m doing research to engage in discussion because I was watching as it happened and find this to be an interesting topic.

I’m also not defending what the cameraman did because it was dumb.
You don't use urinals because you value privacy, yet you're going out of your way to establish that someone filming in a public bathroom without other's permission, many of them using urinals, wasn't invading someone's privacy. What is your deal?
 

KS93

Member
Oct 26, 2017
522
It’s almost as if I’m trying to legitimately engage in a discussion on a discussion forum.
Legitimately engaging in a discussion is one thing. Trying to lay down pound shop "facts don't care about your feelings" when you don't know what you're talking about just looks poor.

I don't even understand the technicalities of privacy laws where I live, let alone those in California. What I do know is that livestreaming the inside of a bathroom is rank.
 

Dizzy Ukulele

Member
Oct 28, 2017
350
When it comes to the question of how so they could be this stupid, the viewing figures for his ‘comeback’ stream will encourage others to be this stupid.
 

KingM

Member
Oct 28, 2017
765
Could very well be, but that law seems to put an emphasis on sexual intent. I’m not an expert on the law, I’m doing research to engage in discussion because I was watching as it happened and find this to be an interesting topic.

I’m also not defending what the cameraman did because it was dumb.
The law does not need sexual intent. IT means intent to film someone in a private place. Recording someone without consent in a place with a reasonable expectation of privacy in california is against the law. A public restroom falls under that area. I spent a couple semesters studying media law in California.
 

Potterson

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,394
Good.

One of the worst examples of streamers. Being a rude asshole "cause it's just his internet persona maaaaan". Heh.
 

MetalBoi

Banned
Dec 21, 2017
3,074
These publicity stunts to get attention... the other day some youtuber got 15 months for putting toothpaste in oreo cookies and feeding them to the homeless. Another one imitated a Wal Mart manager and fired several employees. Another died when he asked his wife to shoot him with a pistol while he was holding up a fucking phone book. He died.

All this for attention. Wonder what's next?
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,922
How to ruin your career in a single stream. Lol

I’m actually doing research on the law, as I’m not a resident of California and have never had to look into this sort of thing. It seems no laws were actually broken as public bathrooms are treated as public property and not covered under the same laws as private bathrooms.

The camera operator would’ve needed to have intent to invade one’s privacy in order to consider filming illegal.

Reference: https://www.losangelescriminallawyer.pro/california-penal-code-section-647-j-pc-invasion-of-privacy.html

I still don’t agree with bringing cameras into the restroom, I would have never done such a thing, but I like to put facts before feelings.
How are bathrooms inside a private event "public"?
 

BowieZ

Member
Nov 7, 2017
2,272
I’m actually doing research on the law, as I’m not a resident of California and have never had to look into this sort of thing. It seems no laws were actually broken as public bathrooms are treated as public property and not covered under the same laws as private bathrooms.

The camera operator would’ve needed to have intent to invade one’s privacy in order to consider filming illegal.

Reference: https://www.losangelescriminallawyer.pro/california-penal-code-section-647-j-pc-invasion-of-privacy.html

I still don’t agree with bringing cameras into the restroom, I would have never done such a thing, but I like to put facts before feelings.
Just for your information, Penal Code 647(j) is a relatively new law that hasn't necessarily been tested and interpreted in court yet (I'm not sure about number of previous cases). "Intention" to "invade privacy" is obviously ambiguous, and it could be inferred that part of the (apparent) humor of Disrespect's live streaming a public urinal is the invasive nature of it.

It's quite feasible for law enforcement bodies to take up prosecution as a means of testing the law.

Either way, I hope you can understand why Twitch has to take drastic action for this sort of stuff. Their business is being threatened in the court of public opinion (if not law) by these negligent hooligans running roughshod over other innocent members of the public who may have to resort to / deal with lawsuits in order to seek justice for these sorts of personal violations.