dr disrespect banned from Twitch (update: now back)

Sei · Jun 12, 2019

nikos said:
I watched the entire stream, which was one of the most entertaining I've ever seen.

Nothing out of the ordinary was shown. You can usually get that same exact view from outside of bathrooms here in the US because they're complete shit with little privacy. People need to stop being so offended by things.

The camera man should have used better discretion. I'm sure he'll be back by Monday.

No one's offended, filming inside bathrooms is illegal in CA. It doesn't matter if you can look inside, what he did wrong was film inside.

The camera man wasn't working alone, he was employed by this guy. Laws don't just apply to employees, they apply to the people that hire them too.

Pasha · Jun 12, 2019

Ph8lanx said:
You guys are acting like people don't do stupid shit to get attention in this world. The guys an idiot. Did he livestream it?

This reminds me of the boyfriend and girlfriend who decided that they would do a video of the guy holding a phone book and the girlfriend would use a real gun and shoot the phone book and their video would go viral right? Wrong. These idiots decided to use the most powerful handgun on the market. Not a .38 which probably wouldn't pierce a Los Angeles County phone book but a .50 cal desert eagle. Well of course you know what happens next. Anyways, she's doing prison time for manslaughter all so they could be famous if they went viral.

My god that's terrible, it's almost as if something should be done to discourage future Streamers from engaging in reckless public stunts for attention....... nah, let them all off the hook, I'm sure he learned his lesson and will be a super duper good boy after all this.

L Thammy · Jun 12, 2019

nikos said:
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.losangelescriminallawye...ode-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.

The intent means that they intended to do the action which breaches privacy and knew that they'd be breaching privacy by doing so, 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?

dock · Jun 12, 2019

Have any Twitch bans ever stuck?

I wouldn't be surprised if teens flock to streams with previous bans.

spootime · Jun 12, 2019

dock said:
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 · Jun 12, 2019

L Thammy said:
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.

kiriku · Jun 12, 2019

Ah, the trending gamer of 2017.

Siggy-P · Jun 12, 2019

nikos said:
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.losangelescriminallawye...ode-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 · Jun 12, 2019

nikos said:
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.

Deleted member 721 · Jun 12, 2019

nikos said:
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)

Keyframe · Jun 12, 2019

I hope the parents of that kid sue the shit out of dr dumbass.

Mastersmith98 · Jun 12, 2019

KingM said:
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.

Goda · Jun 12, 2019

nikos said:
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.losangelescriminallawye...ode-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 · Jun 12, 2019

Eylos said:
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.

Deleted member 16365 · Jun 12, 2019

Milkshake Dick.

Deleted member 31817 · Jun 12, 2019

nikos said:
I still don't like to put facts before feelings.

Well this is just a funny coincidence

https://www.resetera.com/threads/pe...bt-dating-options.100990/page-4#post-18159302

Sei · Jun 12, 2019

nikos said:
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.losangelescriminallawye...ode-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:

Linda has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the locker room, and

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.

Deleted member 8784 · Jun 12, 2019

nikos said:
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 · Jun 12, 2019

Sei said:
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?

nikos · Jun 12, 2019

KS93 said:
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.

It's almost as if I'm trying to legitimately engage in a discussion on a discussion forum.

Goda · Jun 12, 2019

KS93 said:
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 · Jun 12, 2019

nikos said:
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 · Jun 12, 2019

dock said:
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.

ItsBobbyDarin · Jun 12, 2019

Suburban Thug said:
You think it's dumb to advise getting a career instead of thinking streaming video games/weird public stunts will make him money for the next 30 years?

This guy is earning the millions. So no, that would be a pretty stupid advice!

Siggy-P · Jun 12, 2019

nikos said:
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 · Jun 12, 2019

Linus815 said:
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 · Jun 12, 2019

nikos said:
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 · Jun 12, 2019

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.

NekoNeko · Jun 12, 2019

we all know he will be back next week and gain a record number of followers because of this.

NeoandGeo · Jun 12, 2019

Droidian said:
I watch his videos on YouTube from time to time but yeah, come in it's common sense not to film in a restroom. Hell if I was in the bathroom and some dumbass came in with his camera rolling there would be trouble.

Big trouble, right?

Ozorov · Jun 12, 2019

Farfetch'd said:
we all know he will be back next week and gain a record number of followers because of this.

Yup

L Thammy · Jun 12, 2019

nikos said:
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 · Jun 12, 2019

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 · Jun 12, 2019

nikos said:
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?

Deleted member 8784 · Jun 12, 2019

nikos said:
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 · Jun 12, 2019

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.

nuttyevans · Jun 12, 2019

Not very bright.

KingM · Jun 12, 2019

nikos said:
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.

Lupercal · Jun 12, 2019

Mabec said:
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?

Doc told him, keep the camera on me at all times. He was just following orders :P

Potterson · Jun 12, 2019

Good.

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

Ponn · Jun 12, 2019

nikos said:
I'm also not defending what the cameraman did because it was dumb.

You keep saying this as if it negates all your posts defending them and trying to make them look like they broke no laws and we're just being harmlessly silly.

New Yorks Finest · Jun 12, 2019

Not familiar with him nor do I waste my time on Twitch watching others splay..are we talking life time ban?

Claude Augario · Jun 12, 2019

nikos said:
I like to put facts before feelings.

nikos said:
People need to stop being so offended by things.

MetalBoi · Jun 12, 2019

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?

Ryhian · Jun 12, 2019

New Yorks Finest said:
Not familiar with him nor do I waste my time on Twitch watching others splay..are we talking life time ban?

No, he's top 1% and just like rich people in America they just get a slap on the wrist.

Deleted member 5596 · Jun 12, 2019

How to ruin your career in a single stream. Lol

nikos said:
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.losangelescriminallawye...ode-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"?

Vilam · Jun 12, 2019

Good riddance; don't come back. Why does anyone like this guy?

XR. · Jun 12, 2019

Edit: Nevermind.

signal · Jun 12, 2019

Vilam said:
Good riddance; don't come back. Why does anyone like this guy?

Kids are dumb and have bad taste

Deleted member 442 · Jun 12, 2019

nikos said:
I'm 35 years old and have never used a urinal in my life because I value privacy

I'm sorry but, dude what?

dr disrespect banned from Twitch (update: now back)

Spacenoid

Game Designer

User-requested account closure

User requested account closure

Deleted member 31817

User requested account closure

Spacenoid

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

User requested account closure