Dr. Disrespect permanently banned from Twitch

[Tombstone]

At the moment, has the guy been officially charged with anything? Until he is, he is presumed innocent. The trend of trial by social media is troubling. It's laughable that some people who have visited Jeff's island have done far worse, but due to their fame, they face no consequences. I believe far worse things happened there than sexting.

Whilst I agree with what you've written...purely to play devils advocate, surely this :

"At the moment, has the guy been officially charged with anything? Until he is, he is presumed innocent"

And this..

"It's laughable that some people who have visited Jeff's island have done far worse, but due to their fame, they face no consequences. I believe far worse things happened there than sexting"

Are contradictory, if said people also havent been officially charged then you'd have to apply that same presumed innocent logic to them.

 

[Phreaky]

Surely Youtube have no choice but to cancel this confessed groomer?

What platform would ever take on this scumbag?

I think its inevitable, everyone else has dropped him at this point. No way Youtube are having a fiddler on the books.

 

[Roughneck]

Whilst I agree with what you've written...purely to play devils advocate, surely this :

"At the moment, has the guy been officially charged with anything? Until he is, he is presumed innocent"

And this..

"It's laughable that some people who have visited Jeff's island have done far worse, but due to their fame, they face no consequences. I believe far worse things happened there than sexting"

Are contradictory, if said people also havent been officially charged then you'd have to apply that same presumed innocent logic to them.

Last part Fair point mate, doesnt change my opinion of the Doc though

 

[Tombstone]

Last part Fair point mate, doesnt change my opinion of the Doc though

Agreed, as I say, was just playing devils advocate

 

[Hotwired]

if it is an ex-twitch employee why would they not want to protect them selfs?
i am curious what you would suggest doing in this insance? were you want to get a message out but dont want to be identified. or not send an email at all?
given there is talk about contract seporation it sound like this individual has the same contract clause. revealing who they are would mean a lawsuit agaisnt them i would assume.
if this is legit then the person sending it feels strongley enough to try and do something about it. clearly knowing the legal ramifications if the information is tracked down to them.

The same thing everyone else does when they want to rat and be anonymous. The papers are full of "our source/s said" because that's the deal, MP's, Royals, actors, businesses. Private Eye exists because of influential people wanting to dump dirt on each other anonymously.

Is someone actually sweating that they can't have their identity protected when leaking gossip about a streamer. It could just as easily be a partially informed Reddit user writing fanfic or Doc dumping his views that he couldn't put in his twitter statement. You can't know because the sender didn't want to have any level of verification that they were an honest source.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

This has been very obvious every time you post.



You're presenting your opinion as fact. Cody gave a reason for the ban without stating legality. You've told me you think what Cody stated is a criminal act.

As far as I can you're now stating your opinion as hard fact without ever backing it up. Has he really actually stated a criminal offence.

My opinion, which is far more informed than yours.

From wiki

Sexting is sending, receiving, or forwarding sexually explicit messages, photographs, or videos,

So if any images or videos were exchanged with a minor, that would violate child pornography laws, I hope that is self explanatory. As for explicit messages, I'm not sure if there is a specific law against it (Probably sexual harassment laws, since a minor cannot consent) and I don't fancy googling it, as I don't want to turn up on a list somewhere.

However further down the wiki page we find this entry

Sexting is generally legal if all parties are over the age of majority

So yes it is a crime.

Hopefully you are more informed now.

 

[LostCorpse]

The same thing everyone else does when they want to rat and be anonymous. The papers are full of "our source/s said" because that's the deal, MP's, Royals, actors, businesses. Private Eye exists because of influential people wanting to dump dirt on each other anonymously.

this : https://www.private-eye.co.uk/ ?
i ask because i've never heard of it.
"The official site for Private Eye magazine, the UK's number one best-selling news and current affairs publication" for me personally it doesnt scream legit reporting.

or you mean go to a news paper reporter?
or both?

im honestly not in the know about how reporting to public sources would work, especially in these types of situations. i know of wikileaks due to all the new articles as example but not much else. not sure i would trust talking to a reporter either using any trackable connection or inperson meeting.

Is someone actually sweating that they can't have their identity protected when leaking gossip about a streamer. It could just as easily be a partially informed Reddit user writing fanfic or Doc dumping his views that he couldn't put in his twitter statement. You can't know because the sender didn't want to have any level of verification that they were an honest source.

agreed. this is part of the problem. verification.
i dont beleive i have stated its legitimate (if i have i appologies for my poor choice of words) just that it has a possibility of being genuine even if anonymous.
but equally, we can have some one who displays a name and lie about something like the sexting comment. but again its accusation with no evidence presented or verrification i could see.
so i put these 2 staements inthe same category. read but verify information.

so we go back to swings and roundabouts.

i mean.. the goverment wouldnt lie to us would it, its a legitament organisation their to serve and protect its citizen.. its members wouldn't fiddle the books or game the system..

 

[Moothead2]

At the moment, has the guy been officially charged with anything? Until he is, he is presumed innocent. The trend of trial by social media is troubling. It's laughable that some people who have visited Jeff's island have done far worse, but due to their fame, they face no consequences. I believe far worse things happened there than sexting.

Again, no one has to presume him innocent until proven guilty except a court of law if it gets to that point. People are more than welcome to form their own opinion based on what he's admitted to, his past behaviour and the fact Twitch dropped him like a stone.

Your whataboutism doesn't even make sense either. I don't think what happened on Epstein's island makes a 35 year old man sexting a child any better. It's not like society has looked kindly on the nonces that went to his island either.

 

[Neil79]

 

[Hotwired]

My opinion, which is far more informed than yours.

From wiki

So if any images or videos were exchanged with a minor, that would violate child pornography laws, I hope that is self explanatory. As for explicit messages, I'm not sure if there is a specific law against it (Probably sexual harassment laws, since a minor cannot consent) and I don't fancy googling it, as I don't want to turn up on a list somewhere.

However further down the wiki page we find this entry

So yes it is a crime.

Hopefully you are more informed now.

I don't think we're on the same level here. The wikipedia entry on sexting isn't what I was thinking of.

I'm fine with just leaving this and we say nothing more about it.

this : https://www.private-eye.co.uk/ ?
i ask because i've never heard of it.
"The official site for Private Eye magazine, the UK's number one best-selling news and current affairs publication" for me personally it doesnt scream legit reporting.

or you mean go to a news paper reporter?
or both?

im honestly not in the know about how reporting to public sources would work, especially in these types of situations. i know of wikileaks due to all the new articles as example but not much else. not sure i would trust talking to a reporter either using any trackable connection or inperson meeting.

agreed. this is part of the problem. verification.
i dont beleive i have stated its legitimate (if i have i appologies for my poor choice of words) just that it has a possibility of being genuine even if anonymous.
but equally, we can have some one who displays a name and lie about something like the sexting comment. but again its accusation with no evidence presented or verrification i could see.
so i put these 2 staements inthe same category. read but verify information.

so we go back to swings and roundabouts.

i mean.. the goverment wouldnt lie to us would it, its a legitament organisation their to serve and protect its citizen.. its members wouldn't fiddle the books or game the system..

Yes that private eye. Under the in-jokes of the publication are stories on people in charge, abuse of power, fraud, lying, political weaseling, negligence. And the people who buy it are the ones who want to check if they're in it. It's not for everyone.

And no I mean go to "a" reporter of the largest news org that will take your story and offer anonymity after confirming you're not some fraud. Even the BBC is running this story but they won't publish an anonymous email, instead they quote Doc as a primary source and cited The Verge for the claims made by Cody and the anonymous twitch employee.

I would bet The Verge would happily accept verifying the email sender as a credible source just like they already did for another person. But the source has to want to be verified and not just dump words and run.

 

[ianh]

Whilst I know the general outline of the story, I don't want to trawl through pages of forum posts and news stories to find out this one thing that doesn't seem to be obvious to me - Did he KNOW she was a minor whilst he was sexting her or did did he only find out AFTER, because the answer to that changes a whole heap of things.

I've got to ask because people are reacting like he KNEW that she was a minor and still did it anyway, but nowhere in anything I've read or seen including from the man himself or any other sources, actually proves that he knew beforehand. So I wonder what bit I may have missed that proves he knew beforehand for all this flaming-torch mob behaviour to be justified?

 

[.Lethal]

Whilst I know the general outline of the story, I don't want to trawl through pages of forum posts and news stories to find out this one thing that doesn't seem to be obvious to me - Did he KNOW she was a minor whilst he was sexting her or did did he only find out AFTER, because the answer to that changes a whole heap of things.

I've got to ask because people are reacting like he KNEW that she was a minor and still did it anyway, but nowhere in anything I've read or seen including from the man himself or any other sources, actually proves that he knew beforehand. So I wonder what bit I may have missed that proves he knew beforehand for all this flaming-torch mob behaviour to be justified?

Allegedly, he did not know she was 17 when they began talking. At some point he did.

Couldn't tell you anything else in that context because none of us know. Former Twitch employees with exception of 1 have all said it's as bad or worse than what's out there now.

 

[ubersonic]

Whilst I know the general outline of the story, I don't want to trawl through pages of forum posts and news stories to find out this one thing that doesn't seem to be obvious to me - Did he KNOW she was a minor whilst he was sexting her or did did he only find out AFTER, because the answer to that changes a whole heap of things.

Right now we don't know for a fact if he knew she was a minor, or if he was actually sexting her as one person has alleged.

In fact we technically don't even know if they were even a she, it's just heavily presumed.

 

[arknor]

Why not release the chat logs to clear his name....

then all the drama goes away if he really was just a bit "inappropriate" and not perverse

I'm guessing it's not something like "yes stiflers mom is hot, I'd be on that all day long"

 

[Daze]

From .doc to .pdf

 

[henson0115]

No it does not. Civil trials are literally decided on balance of probabilities, not proof of guilt.



The facts are, as admitted by himself, that he sent inappropriate messages to a child. It's highly unlikely he's getting banned for anything other than sexual messages and if he didn't know they were underage he would have been quick to point that out, which he didn't. Given his past behaviour of being a complete and utter scumbag people aren't willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

civil trials have nothing to do with this, its a criminal act and therefor would be a criminal trial, stop trying to change the narrative. I'm talking about my opinion of innocent until proven guilty applies to life in general. we shouldn't go around jumping on the band wagon throwing shade at people without proof, the damage as a result can be catastrophic. have you seen how many innocent people over history have been executed or sentenced to life or had there life ruined and they turn out innocent (families torn apart, including husband's, wives, kids, grand kids etc). in 2024 with social media being what it is, people are so quick to join the herd and start accusing people of things without any evidence and your saying its perfectly fine? better that we are wrong and "someone bad" is caught then we are wrong and an innocent person life is completely ruined. no wonder the world is the way it is with that logic. i think people get some feel good feeling about doing this and its wrong.

if he's admitted it then he is guiltily, but i haven't read anything here to say he admitted it. and if hes guilty then he deserves everything he gets to be honest.

 

[MoNkeE]

He’s admitted sending inappropriate messages to a minor, and has kept the rest of the cards very close to his chest.

Whether companies working with him want to make judgements based on the information in the public domain is entirely down to them, and with his above admittance, I can see why businesses are cutting ties.

As for the court of the public, they’re doing much the same - except instead of contracts and deals, it’s words on socials.

This is not doc’s career going down the drain because somebody has accused him and he’s defended. It seems an NDA somewhere has ended, somebody has made an accusation and he’s effectively said “yes it’s true, but it’s not THAT bad, it wasn’t illegal”.

I think from an “Internet Morality Police” perspective, this is exactly an issue of morality, and whether you want to support a person who doesn’t hold your own moral beliefs.

 

[henson0115]

if thats the case and he knew they were a minor then he deserves everything that's happened so far and worse. when i posted my original post we had nothing to go on only hearsay.

 

[LostCorpse]

Yes that private eye. Under the in-jokes of the publication are stories on people in charge, abuse of power, fraud, lying, political weaseling, negligence. And the people who buy it are the ones who want to check if they're in it. It's not for everyone.

And no I mean go to "a" reporter of the largest news org that will take your story and offer anonymity after confirming you're not some fraud. Even the BBC is running this story but they won't publish an anonymous email, instead they quote Doc as a primary source and cited The Verge for the claims made by Cody and the anonymous twitch employee.

I would bet The Verge would happily accept verifying the email sender as a credible source just like they already did for another person. But the source has to want to be verified and not just dump words and run.

thank you, i've learned something new yesterday/today i apprecaiate that. and thank you for you contributions.

for reference BBC article for those interested : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq55x8v8nvro

 

[mrk]

So the gamer version of saville?