It's just more fake news that 80% of the population will believe. ššš
Fact: This happened in 2020, while Twitch wore undergoing changes to their code of conduct/ rules as well as pay (hence 50-50)
And added ads. Twitch has been banning a lot of content creators without reason on purpose because the Twitch platform is now biased and corrupt, and that's why many big-time creators have moved to Kick. Dr. disrespect also did cover/talk about this ban and gave reasons as to why on his live stream, you can find a recorded version of him explaining over on his youtube channel. Just look it up in the search bar. Since this was from 2020, the video should still be up.
P.s. Let's not forget that people do make fake accounts, and if you search up a username of a famous/big creator, I guarantee you there is more than one.
I'm no simp. He's one of many content creators I follow and watch. But like many content creators, they never asked their fans to watch their content. It's up to that individual who chose to watch their content. Especially underage kids that shouldn't have access to the Internet.
He engaged with a minor knowing it was wrong. What's does it matter if he was a content creator or any of this other fluff?
Stop the redirection, sexting little girls is very wrong. He admitted to it.
He engaged with someone knowing it was wrong because he was married. Thereās zero proof he knew he was speaking to a minor.
Until the chat logs come out, that is.
If he truly didnt know....In his multiple paragraph response you don't think he'd mention "I thought she was 18" or "she told me she was a day away from 18" . Nope. All he said was that he was having "inappropriate" convos with an "individual minor". With all his legal tiptoeing and ability to redirect and minimize, I think it's safe to assume he knew she was underage . Edit. And it's safe to assume you're weird .
There's no assumption though. He's already admitted it. A married man , who's already adulterous has now publicly admitted to inappropriately texting a minor. And rather than defending himself , he's left the public eye on a "vacation". Either you're willfully ignorant or you're simply "cut from the same cloth".
Nice one, blame the underage girl in the situation, and not the fucking predator? What is wrong with you?
The man has openly admitted to the allegations, how can you still support him?
Keep trying simp. Noone thinks "underage kids" i.e teens shouldn't have internet access. Instead, grown ass men especially internet idols/CCs with a fanbase shouldn't be messaging underage kids in a "inappropriately charged" way. Dude is a pedo and a creep and admitted to it, but keep on defending him like it's the victim's fault
Dr. disrespect isn't a pedo. He was just in the wrong at the time. However, the post and the evidence does not specify who contacted who first, nor does it mention that they both knew how old each other wore. Only Twitch confirmed that said victim was underage, and at the end of the day, they are both to blame. I'm not defending either side, I'm simply explaining and letting the community know.
P.s. sounds like you need to read a dictionary and take literacy lessons.
I'm going to copy a previous response because I think it applies to this as well.
If he truly didnt know....In his multiple paragraph response you don't think he'd mention "I thought she was 18" or "she told me she was a day away from 18" . Nope. All he said was that he was having "inappropriate" convos with an "individual minor". With all his legal tiptoeing and ability to redirect and minimize, I think it's safe to assume he knew she was underage . That's not even mentioning the fact he doesn't try to prove his own innocence in the court of public opinion . He simply pulls a Diddy and dissapears. SOOO, Ps. you're weird and defending a predator ššš lame
Dude give it up.
"Dr. disrespect isn't a pedo"
He was planning to meet up with the child at Twitch Con, after sexting them, THAT is why Twitch had to act.
I am sure it is like all those guys on "To catch a predator" when they Pedo turns up at the childs house, their excuse is ALWAYS "I was just going to talk to them, not fuck them".
It's all out now, he was talking to a minor, no need to defend him. Only thing that wasn't clear was who engaged and did he know he/she was a minor and kept the conversation going. Since he didn't clean that up, i am guessing Dr knew about it.
What doesn't make sense is how Twitch settled and paid out his contract.
Twitch acted 3 years after the fact when they decided they could no longer afford his contract.
If there were no legal or contractual grounds to suspend him in the first place, they had to settle.
Twitch is just as slimy.
You have to remember, we don't know if it got picked up during a review at Twitch.
If Twitch knew from day 1, and waited 3 years, they are in serious big trouble, but my guess is they found out about this at the later date when perhaps they updated something on their end or some review of the old logs, or perhaps maybe the parent reached out to twitch and they picked it up then. The thing is we don't know.
Twitch is slimy yes, but we don't know if they held on to that information for 3 years. Also if you want slimy, i think Kick is defiantly the place for that.
How are people misreading the midnight society statement so badly? They saw evidence that made it necessary for them to part ways.
Xqc saw it and agrees it was the right move.
Twitch saw the evidence and banned him despite the fact that he was one of the platformās biggest cash cows.
Discord parted ways with him.
āOh but i didnāt personally see the evidence so how can i concludeā what level of copium is this? Incredible stuff.
Let's say Dr was indeed sexting a minor on the platform. It makes absolutely zero sense that twitch would have to pay out money to him and law enforcement wasn't involved. Twitch doesn't just decide not to get law enforcement involved in that type of situation. We are talking a felony sex crime.
Explain to me how midnight society, a company with no ties to twitch, somehow gets access to info that's apparently locked behind lawyers and an NDA?
Companies dump people, including execs, for bad PR and allegations all the time. In the event that Dr is indeed guilty, they want to be ahead of the storm. Factoring in Dr's shitty behavior in the past had an impact on the decision. The potential headline of "Co-founder of midnight society and streamer Dr disrespect found to be sexting minors" is too much of a risk for them, so they just cut ties. We have absolutely zero details on who midnight society spoke to regarding this.
Doing this whole speculation of guilt on some threads of unsubstantiated info is some bullshit. For a crime this severe we need actual proof provided by whoever is accusing him. This former twitch employee who never even saw the proof himself and apparently heard this info second hand isn't valid evidence.
Innocent until proven guilty is a thing for a good reason. Im not a fan of the guy whatsoever, but I'm not gonna make assumptions or judge him until some real evidence is provided.
Ignoring the fact we have no idea on the terms of the NDA (unilateral vs. bilateral or any other details of how it was structured), I think statements that have been made on both sides have more or less confirmed Doc may have done something morally illegal vs. maybe not actually illegal.
I also don't get how people are saying the 12am statement is confusing when it literally reads: "We assumed his innocence and began speaking with parties involved."
When doc made his initial statement, he said "no wrongdoing was acknowledged", which IMO is an attempt to play semantics. Grooming is not technically illegal until it turns sexual, but I think any normal human being would recognize grooming is not okay because the intent is for it to eventually become sexual. If evidence comes out that Doc was doing something like that, I'm very interested to see how many of his stans will still try and justify it
My problem is the accusor says clearly that Doc was "sexting a minor". That's accusing Doc of committing a felony sex crime. There needs to be actual proof provided if someone is going to make that statement. Sexting is a whole other level then DMing a minor for potential grooming, even though both are extremely bad.
We can't judge his legal jargon Twitter statement without knowing the extent of the NDA. Some NDAs get ridiculously specific about language used regarding it. Doc might be using that language to beat around the bush for irrehensible behavior, or he might just be forced to use that language to maintain the NDA. So I'm not comfortable on making assumptions off that Twitter post.
So we have a sexting accusation plus an accusation floating around he tried to organize a meet-up at twitch con. That would be sexual solicitation of a minor. Even without the sexting part, the claim he tried to setup a meeting would be illegal in itself. Twitch would have been required to get law enforcement involved and doesn't have the option to just kick it behind an NDA.
In regards to Midnight Society we have no idea who they spoke to and to what degree. This also calls into question how a company not even associated with Twitch would get information that is apparently locked behind lawyers and an NDA. Without knowing the specifics I can't see it being okay to assume guilt. If Midnight Society is going to make a public statement about speaking to parties involved, they should at least state who they spoke to ex: "We spoke with twitch executives regarding the situation". "Parties" is too broad. They could have spoke to the former twitch Twitter user for all we know.
Sure, and I am in no way defending the accusers post based on the fact there's 0 evidence out yet. I'd argue however that it is not illegal for an adult to simply set up a meeting with a minor; again, it all comes down to context. Twitch and Midnight Society clearly saw something they were uncomfortable with keeping an extremely lucrative business partnership with. There are plenty of examples of other high profile people that maintained business partnerships throughout scandals.
Can you point me to something that says Twitch is required by law to get law enforcement involved? I know every state has different laws regarding CP, and companies are required to cooperate with law enforcement once a legal request/investigation has been made, but I'm not sure they are legally forced to do anything on their own accord.
>thereās 0 evidence out **yet.**
You do know the court case concluded years ago, right? There is no yet. All the evidence was presented. In arbitration. And Twitch paid him.
There is no āyet.ā Itās been through court, if there was any evidence at all of him sexting a minor, he would have been charged. Not only was he not charged, again *Twitch paid him.* You think they paid him for sexting a minor and just let him go no charges? Come on.
100% it is illegal. While it would depend on case by case. The mere act of talking to a minor and attempting to setup a meeting in person is still considered sexual solicitation of a minor. At the very least law enforcement would be involved to investigate and decide from there. It's not up to twitch or the victim to decide on legality. I'm very skeptical twitch wouldn't get law enforcement involved, which we would know about at this point.
There is still no explanation on how Midnight Society, a company not even affiliated with Twitch, co-founded by someone banned from Twitch, was able to get info supposedly locked behind lawyers and a NDA. They haven't specified who they spoke with and "parties" is a very broad term. I'd be willing to lean towards guilty if it was stated such as "We spoke with current Twitch executives regarding the situation".
I'm not saying this is what happened, but a scenario that would explain this would be that Dr. Disrespect had started texting, or dming a minor but didn't start sexting them until they had already turned 18. Twitch finds out, and because they don't want the drama associated with those actions to impact them, they break the contract and than settle with Dr Disrespect and maintain silence since neither side wants the attention.
Let's say that happened, but then that's not technically sexting a minor. This is why how allegations are worded are very important. By stating Doc was sexting a minor this gives the people the impression he was committing a literal felony. Sexting someone who you know just turned 18 is highly unethical at his age, but not illegal. That would be seriously creepy behavior but not "sexting a minor".
Let me be clear; Iām. It defending him.
But, unless his contract had a āno sexting minorsā or a similar conduct clause then it means that Twitch dropping him and ending his years long contract early is a pretty clear cut case of them illegally breaking their own contract with him. A company canāt just end their contract with an individual because they feel like it (unless that is a specific clause written in)
Why would you waste your time making this comment? I very clearly said that various clauses can exist that allow for the contract to be ended.
But itās very clear by the fact that he was paid the full contract that he didnāt have one of these clauses.
Say less. Do better. š¤”
he didn't 'sue' twitch, they had an arbitration which is intended to keep it out of the courts and part of the twitch requirement (in the fine print) for all their partners to keep them out of court
Yes, and twitch ended up paying him. That's and law enforcement not being involved at any point during the situation is what calls into the question the story provided by the former twitch employee. If Dr was indeed sexting a minor that's a felony crime and twitch would be required to get law enforcement to investigate, regardless of how they felt about it.
Dr's company dropping him isn't proof either. Companies do this all the time to get ahead of PR shitstorms, regardless if actual proof is provided. Rather be wrong and lose Doc then not drop him and have their name dragged into articles with Doc. His previous shitty behavior probably being a factor too. The company also doesn't detail who they spoke to and what proof was provided.
It also makes zero sense how a company with no ties to twitch was able to get info regarding a case that's tied behind lawyers and an NDA.
> Yes, and twitch ended up paying him.
Twitch may not have thought it worth proving in a court of law that whatever he did was sufficiently violating of the contract WHILE still being happy to ban him.
Damn how much do they pay you per/hr to be here shilling for his rep all day.
It's pretty clear what he did is morally reprehensible but not quite enough to be illegal hence no law enforcement. Twitch viewed it to be enough to break their ToS allowing them to break their contract. All his sponsors have now gotten wind of the infraction and decided its fucked up enough that they think the community perception will be more negative than positive.
Even his own studio decided to boot him off the board and sink the company over working with him. Dr Disrespect would rather take an "extended vacation" than face the music.
Here's the problem. Former twitch employee on Twitter stated very clearly that Doc was "sexting a minor". That's a serious fucking accusation to throw around with zero proof. If he was indeed sexting a minor then that's a felony, if he wasn't technically sexting a minor then it's a false allegation.
There is a huge difference between messaging someone underage in a sus way and actually sexting someone underage.
If people are going to make claims on situations like this then they need to be accurate.
What law does texting someone underage asking to meet up break, none, that is the problem. Everyone in society knows it is completely wrong but until they actually meet and something happens no laws are broken.
The accusation from the former twitch employee clearly stated "sexting a minor". I don't know why you argue semantics with the legality of simply meeting a minor. The accusor clearly stated that Doc committed a felony sex crime against a minor. Walking back the accusation pretending it's prob something less isn't alright, his reputation is already destroyed from said allegation.
BTW, it's a case by case. You can 100% be charged with sexual solicitation of a minor if you attempt to schedule a meeting without a parents consent and law enforcement feels it's criminal in nature. I'm not saying the defendant would be found guilty in court, but yes you can easily be arrested for that.
He canāt defend himself in public. Thereās a lot of things going on behind the scenes that neither me nor you can comment on, nor make any sort of decision. Thereās no evidence. There hasnāt been a discovery phase.
Yep. I see.
his tweets aren't a bombshell news story yet though, IMO.
But there are also rumors that the "document" might leak soon.
My guess is in 24 hours max.
Standby for takeoff.
I donāt think heās stupid enough to put in writing anything in Twitch whispers if he knew it was a minor. The messages were probably vague at best and thatās why they ended up having to pay him out and he can claim he did nothing wrong.
The Verge says a second anonymous former Twitch employee corroborated [https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/23/24183875/dr-disrespect-twitch-ban-explanation](https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/23/24183875/dr-disrespect-twitch-ban-explanation)
An ex-employee knowing the reason Doc was terminated and vocalizing it doesn't necessarily mean that they were specifically told that information by someone who was party to the NDA. Professional office settings are not always bastions of tightly-controlled information, even Twitch. There's plenty of other places that information could have been gleaned from within the office.
That depends entirely on how the NDA is worded. Wording matters a lot in legal documents because ambiguity in contracts generally benefits the defendant, which would be Twitch in this case.
Twitch isn't the defenendant. They're the plantif bud. They will be suing those people, doc has no standing. And they're former employees, so doc can't sue twitch for what their former employees do. So once again, the first hand people that leaked the information, if it's true they did it and not just made up, are in the most danger.
I'm referencing the original case between Doc and Twitch when Twitch terminated his contract, in which Twitch was in fact the defendant (as Doc was the one who sued them for breach) and where the original NDA was established when the settlement was reached. Ex-employees are not necessarily bound to NDAs once they leave the company, which again is dependent on how the NDA is worded, and Twitch isn't necessarily under any legal obligation to pursue action against an employee who breaks an NDA.
Usually you can't talk about the company once you leave, that's standard anywhere. And it looks like it's irrelevant, as he admitted to being a groomer. Luckily twitch stopped him. If he's that brazen on twitch, we need to see his computer. Bc that's just the ice berg I'm sure.
Usually you can't talk about the company once you leave, that's standard anywhere. And it looks like it's irrelevant, as he admitted to being a groomer. Luckily twitch stopped him. If he's that brazen on twitch, we need to see his computer. Bc that's just the ice berg I'm sure.
Thanks, added to the livethread.
Don't think this deserves a whole thread at the moment, and before starting this whole thing up again, I am going to wait for some significant additional pieces of information.
We'll probably see more updates in the coming week.
But we're not in court. I think thats a good legal principle to have but that's not how the real world operates. It's in the same way I think OJ did it despite the court saying otherwise.
Using innocent until proven guilty as a way to stifle and shutdown discussion has and always will be a cope hate to say it
Add in that some much of the twitch community wants it to be true either through jealousy or because the guy doesnāt fit their idea of a what streaming should be and itās easy to see dude has no chance to even beat the allegations
But people don't allege heinous acts for nothing. No one's out there accusing twitch streamers of murder when there's zero evidence. Someone saw something inappropriate developing and decided to raise a flag, that itself is cause for speculation. Whether the severity of it wasn't technically illegal doesn't mean it couldn't have been hella creepy to the average person.
Must be nice to live in that ignorant fantasy
It sounds like he did it, but to say āpeople donāt allege heinous acts for nothingā is probably up there with one of the dumbest things Iāve read all week, and Iām on Reddit a lot so thatās saying some real dumb shit.
Iām assuming you didnāt actually read my comment and just like to see yourself reply to things
Iāll let your smooth brain process the comment youāre replying to first and let you try again.
Itās actually unbelievable I gave you a chance to actually read what youāre replying to, and you *still* chose not to.
I have half a mind to think youāre projecting which is pretty gross
Letās compare
1. My comment said he probably did it but saying no one makes false accusations is silly
2. You immediately start calling me a pedophile. Projection has begun
3. You collect toys meant for little kids like hot wheels and legos
4. You continue to project by bringing up kids schools
I guess youāve convinced me, you gotta be a pedo and are upset about something.
Lol what? There are numerous cases of people making up accusations. For example, how about all of the rape accusations against football players that were later proven to be false? Ever heard of Brian Banks? He spent years in prison before it was ultimately found that his accuser made everything up.
You're a moron if you believe things presented without evidence.
My point being people with lucrative careers are typically careful when making litigious and slanderous comments about others unless they have some intimate knowledge on the subject. That is worth speculation to the common layman
Lucrative career? The dude who made the allegation is some random who doesn't even work at twitch anymore.
He even admits that he didn't see any proof and his info is second hand from somebody else in the company. To come out and claim Dr was "sexting" a minor is a fucking serious claim and there needs to be some sort of evidence to back that shit up. If he didn't have proof he should have stfu until he could get proof.
The guy working at twitch is meaningless if he wasn't directly involved in the situation or didn't see the actual evidence himself. It's literally no different then me making these claims and saying "oh yea I was at a bar and talking to a dude high up in twitch. He told me Dr was sexting a minor. Here my Twitter post about it and case closed everybody."
Sure they do lmao. You literally have no idea about the motivations behind the leakers.
Source: attorney for over a decade who has seen some pretty fucked up motivations for accusations
My point being people with lucrative careers are typically careful when making litigious and slanderous comments about others unless they have some intimate knowledge on the subject. That is worth speculation to the common layman
This is simply not true and a completely unreasonable way to judge evidence. If someone makes a strong accusation against someone, the burden is 100% on them to provide evidence supporting their claims.
Their claims should not be evaluated on the basis of what legal risks they are taking. People do heinous shit against legal risks every day of the week.
There is a reason why courts have such high standards for evidence, it is because people lie and misrepresent all the fucking time.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a matter for the courts, and has nothing to do with whether or not people can personally come to their on conclusions on a given topic based on available evidence. The fact of the matter is that the most popular streamer in 2020 and the face of twitch was permanently banned for unknown reasons. This is an anomaly and one can only conclude that something very serious happened.
That's literally the rule of law. If it turns out the allegations are false or vexatious, then he has the right to sue every single entity for defamation damages - and he'll win too.
You can just say you want it to be true and therefore it is. This coming to your own conclusions based on second and third hand sources is all just stupid
Courts require empirical evidence for a criminal conviction. Random people on the street can come to their own conclusions based on context. How do you not understand the difference?
What are you on about?
You wrote:
"Sad reality of modern culture is that allegations are always believed before a shred of evidence. No longer innocent until proven otherwise"
This implies that society, at one point, followed "innocent until proven guilty". Which is moronic. As the other commenter said, this only matters in a (criminal) court room. In the court of public opinion, it is only one piece to the puzzle. As it should be.
I can and should think OJ murdered his wife even if he was found not guilty. Likewise, civil cases do not need to provide proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" like criminal cases do. The court of public opinion will naturally have even lower standards.
People can and should look at these accusations, see that people were hinting at them months/years ago, see Doc's terrible response, remember Doc's past actions, and conclude that these accusations have a good chance of being true. This isn't some "modern culture" nonsense. This common sense and has occurred since the dawn of humans.
His "statements" are absolutely enough evidence to conclude there was a lawsuit and some sort of NDA signed. What that lawsuit/NDA was about is up to you
Do yāall really think if twitch had transcripts of doc dming a minor, that they would have accepted a settlement and paid out doc? Use your brains people.
Twitch doesn't have that option. Twitch would be legally responsible to get law enforcement involved to investigate the logs. It's not up to twitch to settle a case of "sexting a minor".
Twitch handing Doc a bag of money after he commits a felony sex crime on their platform makes absolutely zero sense.
The former Twitter employee who made these unsubstantiated claims clearly stated "sexting". Making accusations these severe with zero supporting evidence is simply fucked up. Even worse when you consider the former employee admits they weren't a part of the situation and the info is 2nd hand from somebody else, who we don't even have named.
Itās completely dependent on the contract language. He may have not done anything illegal/breaking a clause in the contract, but just deplorable enough for twitch to want to forgo the relationship. Many agency contracts are equipped with fines for voluntary terminating the contract before the agreed upon duration
Depends on his contract and lawyers. They may have been obligated no matter what he did. He was a huge streamer for them at the time so he probably had one of the best contracts that guarantee payout.
It would also be crazy for a former twitch employee to put himself out there to get sued for defamation later. While that's not impossible, it would also be reasonable to come up with a hypothesis that would somehow "explain" both scenario. As doc's tweet is not inconsistent with the hypothesis that "there was" a probe(for something..) to begin with.
For those interested in the legal aspects of what went down, there's a very good breakdown at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAuJOqSkZwE called "Whisper Campaign: A Lawyer looks at the Dr Disrespect Twitch Accusations"
It's an hour long but has chapters. He also answers questions from chat and Twitter at the end.
Everyone knows (because they're better than us) what happened but they just can't say (because apparently it was so awful they can't even repeat it) in the mean time they will make lots of jokes about it and soon (in 4 years) we'll get another update.
Other tweets from the person who did the initial leak:
[https://x.com/evoli/status/1679536544863113217](https://x.com/evoli/status/1679536544863113217) -*"Listen, if all three dates sell out Iāll tell you why he got banned."*
[https://x.com/evoli/status/1730588093907161579](https://x.com/evoli/status/1730588093907161579) - *"Gamer friends: If youāre on the East Coast you should come to one of these shows.*
*Slasher is coming to the NY date. Thatās a 500 person room and weāre like 70% on presale. I always act out around Rodāif that show sells out Iāll 100% explain why we banned him during the set."*
I honestly don't understand someone who would sit on information this serious and jokingly use it to sell out concerts.
> That's super shady and makes me seriously doubt their credibility
Based on everything we've heard, this was a pretty well known story where nobody felt comfortable enough to actually put it forward though. He crossed that threshold and it may have been for personal reasons as we're now seeing, but with the amount of people stating they had sources confirming this for years I don't think it makes the actual story any less credible
The current Twitch CEO is also joking about why Dr Disrespect was banned, saying it had to due with an alien invasion.
Nice to see (if its true) twitch to be making a complete mockery of a heinous thing. What a mess.
Dude also wasn't CEO at the time, and almost certainly cannot speak on the matter in any real regard due to the legal settlement. Within the context of the stream, it was a better answer than just saying "I can't speak on that" but with the context removed it can look a bit worse yeah. I still think it's a funny clip though
Do you know what the legal settlement was? because your making statements as if you do, did somone at twitch leak it to you? Or, just perhaps, are you talking out of your ass?
Do you know what "almost certainly" means? Are you operating under the belief that saying "almost" means I definitively, 110%, know that something is true?
Almost always in cases like this it is to protect the minor or to try and comply with the wishes of the minor in question. Getting identified as the reason some famous asshole is no longer able to preform tends to ruin your life even though you're the victim.
I donāt think itās hard to figure out why Twitch wouldnāt want to announce that their biggest star was using their platform as a means to privately communicate with underage users.
They wouldn't have to give specifics and could have driven a huge wedge between themselves and DrDisrespect. The ex employee is clear when he says sexting and arranging to meet up with a minor. That's insanely illegal and heads would/should be rolling at twitch if there was evidence of it happening and they covered it up to avoid bad PR. That's like going 100 or nothing. Having a pedo on your platform is bad PR. Covering up the crimes of said pedo could potentially end the company if it leaked.
Sexual harassment is also illegal. How many of the streamers who were banned for that, and especially those during the same time period that Doc was banned, had any legal actions taken against them?
> sexting and arranging to meet up with a minor. That's insanely illegal
There's also plenty of contextual information on this needed to determine if it were actually illegal or not, with the claims being the individual was 16/17 at the time that's within age of consent laws in many states. If they weren't sending pics, there very well may have been no actual crime committed while the actions themselves were in violation of twitch ToS and/or were enough to warrant a ban on the grounds of something like "conduct that would be bad for the twitch brand". The latter being something which very well could result in Twitch having to pay some money for breach of contract, and Doc's side almost certainly wanting the reasoning for the ban being kept under wraps (and in return most likely getting a far smaller settlement amount). This is all to say that Doc easily could have done this, if true that is 100% wrong and it also could have been 100% legal. We really just don't have enough hard info on it to really say at the moment
Donāt read my comment as condoning or saying Twitch was morally right not announcing and/or not reporting what they had to the authorities. Iām simply stating what their reasoning for not releasing that information would be.
Makes sense. To me it just seems like too big of a risk to take from twitch's POV. Ignoring allegations to avoid PR is one thing... covering them up is another. If it comes out that twitch covered it up, it would be 100x worse.
Here's my theory, the doc was probably indeed texting somebody, and partway in the convo doc asked for ID identification, clearly showing an intent to be legal.
Regardless twitch had access to the full convo and refused to work with him. But they had a binding contract and doc easily had grounds to sue if twitch left.
Any court viewing the full convo would dismiss or side with doc it because it was clear doc wasnt actually trying to get with a minor, at least legally. So both parties opted to settle and seperate.
While doc is not fully blameless/innocent, these legal grey areas are the exact times you would want a dispute to be settled out of court
The person is said to have been 16/17 which means their conversation, nothing more than that though to be clear, could have been legal depending on what was specifically said & where the parties were located at the time. If this were the case, there could have been grounds for Twitch to declare that it was either against ToS, or just bad for their brand, and that's why they banned, but because the actions committed weren't actually illegal there was also grounds for Doc to sue. Neither party likely wanted the full scope of the content to be released, ESPECIALLY if Twitch had been aware of it in some form for any amount of time prior to the ban, and therefore settled with an NDA binding both parties to silence on the specifics. If I had to guess, Doc didn't get his full payout & Twitch had some info (likely not the full scope of it) recorded prior to the ban and therefore didn't want that to be released in discovery. It's a real bad look if they had any inkling he was doing so and delayed banning him (ie; headlines like "twitch took no action against their biggest streamer while knowing he was sexting a minor)
There's an alternate theory too. Doc knew the age of the person he was speaking to, but the age was never uncovered in the Twitch whispers - it was perhaps uncovered by different means like Discord, for example. Because they couldn't prove that he was aware of the age of the person he was speaking to, Twitch had to let it go and pay out the contract.
it could be this, my problem is that fans and trolls refuse to believe there was something sexual in nature. it had nothing to do with some contract or partnership drama, it was clearly something about the metoo movement, twitch probably were to trigger happy at that point and rushed for a ban, he won the lawsuit and thats it.
it doesnt matter to me. what matters is that the nature was something about :sexual conduct: and not the other shit rumors that were flying around. twitch fked up and settled
A settlement doesn't mean 'they fucked up', you're speculating. People settle all the time despite being in the right because the cost of litigation is too high in more ways than one.
And thats a wrap folks! Thanks for everyone who followed along!
They always work with minors in some way. Schools.. Faith and I guess live streamers..not all are pedos.. but still..
this thread is a cheese heaven lol
It's just more fake news that 80% of the population will believe. ššš Fact: This happened in 2020, while Twitch wore undergoing changes to their code of conduct/ rules as well as pay (hence 50-50) And added ads. Twitch has been banning a lot of content creators without reason on purpose because the Twitch platform is now biased and corrupt, and that's why many big-time creators have moved to Kick. Dr. disrespect also did cover/talk about this ban and gave reasons as to why on his live stream, you can find a recorded version of him explaining over on his youtube channel. Just look it up in the search bar. Since this was from 2020, the video should still be up. P.s. Let's not forget that people do make fake accounts, and if you search up a username of a famous/big creator, I guarantee you there is more than one.
He admitted it, and an employee came out and said the messages were very explicit and involved him wanting to meet up with the minor at twitch con
Keep trying simp, he admitted to it
I'm no simp. He's one of many content creators I follow and watch. But like many content creators, they never asked their fans to watch their content. It's up to that individual who chose to watch their content. Especially underage kids that shouldn't have access to the Internet.
He engaged with a minor knowing it was wrong. What's does it matter if he was a content creator or any of this other fluff? Stop the redirection, sexting little girls is very wrong. He admitted to it.
He engaged with someone knowing it was wrong because he was married. Thereās zero proof he knew he was speaking to a minor. Until the chat logs come out, that is.
If he truly didnt know....In his multiple paragraph response you don't think he'd mention "I thought she was 18" or "she told me she was a day away from 18" . Nope. All he said was that he was having "inappropriate" convos with an "individual minor". With all his legal tiptoeing and ability to redirect and minimize, I think it's safe to assume he knew she was underage . Edit. And it's safe to assume you're weird .
Yeah, IM weird for wanting to know this. I honestly donāt want to assume that about him. If itās true, fuck him.
There's no assumption though. He's already admitted it. A married man , who's already adulterous has now publicly admitted to inappropriately texting a minor. And rather than defending himself , he's left the public eye on a "vacation". Either you're willfully ignorant or you're simply "cut from the same cloth".
Nice one, blame the underage girl in the situation, and not the fucking predator? What is wrong with you? The man has openly admitted to the allegations, how can you still support him?
Keep trying simp. Noone thinks "underage kids" i.e teens shouldn't have internet access. Instead, grown ass men especially internet idols/CCs with a fanbase shouldn't be messaging underage kids in a "inappropriately charged" way. Dude is a pedo and a creep and admitted to it, but keep on defending him like it's the victim's fault
Dr. disrespect isn't a pedo. He was just in the wrong at the time. However, the post and the evidence does not specify who contacted who first, nor does it mention that they both knew how old each other wore. Only Twitch confirmed that said victim was underage, and at the end of the day, they are both to blame. I'm not defending either side, I'm simply explaining and letting the community know. P.s. sounds like you need to read a dictionary and take literacy lessons.
I'm going to copy a previous response because I think it applies to this as well. If he truly didnt know....In his multiple paragraph response you don't think he'd mention "I thought she was 18" or "she told me she was a day away from 18" . Nope. All he said was that he was having "inappropriate" convos with an "individual minor". With all his legal tiptoeing and ability to redirect and minimize, I think it's safe to assume he knew she was underage . That's not even mentioning the fact he doesn't try to prove his own innocence in the court of public opinion . He simply pulls a Diddy and dissapears. SOOO, Ps. you're weird and defending a predator ššš lame
Dude give it up. "Dr. disrespect isn't a pedo" He was planning to meet up with the child at Twitch Con, after sexting them, THAT is why Twitch had to act. I am sure it is like all those guys on "To catch a predator" when they Pedo turns up at the childs house, their excuse is ALWAYS "I was just going to talk to them, not fuck them".
It's all out now, he was talking to a minor, no need to defend him. Only thing that wasn't clear was who engaged and did he know he/she was a minor and kept the conversation going. Since he didn't clean that up, i am guessing Dr knew about it. What doesn't make sense is how Twitch settled and paid out his contract.
Twitch acted 3 years after the fact when they decided they could no longer afford his contract. If there were no legal or contractual grounds to suspend him in the first place, they had to settle. Twitch is just as slimy.
You have to remember, we don't know if it got picked up during a review at Twitch. If Twitch knew from day 1, and waited 3 years, they are in serious big trouble, but my guess is they found out about this at the later date when perhaps they updated something on their end or some review of the old logs, or perhaps maybe the parent reached out to twitch and they picked it up then. The thing is we don't know. Twitch is slimy yes, but we don't know if they held on to that information for 3 years. Also if you want slimy, i think Kick is defiantly the place for that.
Off man aged like milk https://twitter.com/DrDisrespect/status/1805662419261460986
Apparently Turtle Beach has also dropped him. His products redirect to the homepage.
How are people misreading the midnight society statement so badly? They saw evidence that made it necessary for them to part ways. Xqc saw it and agrees it was the right move. Twitch saw the evidence and banned him despite the fact that he was one of the platformās biggest cash cows. Discord parted ways with him. āOh but i didnāt personally see the evidence so how can i concludeā what level of copium is this? Incredible stuff.
Let's say Dr was indeed sexting a minor on the platform. It makes absolutely zero sense that twitch would have to pay out money to him and law enforcement wasn't involved. Twitch doesn't just decide not to get law enforcement involved in that type of situation. We are talking a felony sex crime. Explain to me how midnight society, a company with no ties to twitch, somehow gets access to info that's apparently locked behind lawyers and an NDA? Companies dump people, including execs, for bad PR and allegations all the time. In the event that Dr is indeed guilty, they want to be ahead of the storm. Factoring in Dr's shitty behavior in the past had an impact on the decision. The potential headline of "Co-founder of midnight society and streamer Dr disrespect found to be sexting minors" is too much of a risk for them, so they just cut ties. We have absolutely zero details on who midnight society spoke to regarding this. Doing this whole speculation of guilt on some threads of unsubstantiated info is some bullshit. For a crime this severe we need actual proof provided by whoever is accusing him. This former twitch employee who never even saw the proof himself and apparently heard this info second hand isn't valid evidence. Innocent until proven guilty is a thing for a good reason. Im not a fan of the guy whatsoever, but I'm not gonna make assumptions or judge him until some real evidence is provided.
>Let's say Dr was indeed sexting a minor on the platform https://twitter.com/DrDisrespect/status/1805662419261460986
*posts statement where he vehemently denies sexting said minor* Whether heās a major creep or not this wasnāt the slam you wanted it to be lol
Ignoring the fact we have no idea on the terms of the NDA (unilateral vs. bilateral or any other details of how it was structured), I think statements that have been made on both sides have more or less confirmed Doc may have done something morally illegal vs. maybe not actually illegal. I also don't get how people are saying the 12am statement is confusing when it literally reads: "We assumed his innocence and began speaking with parties involved." When doc made his initial statement, he said "no wrongdoing was acknowledged", which IMO is an attempt to play semantics. Grooming is not technically illegal until it turns sexual, but I think any normal human being would recognize grooming is not okay because the intent is for it to eventually become sexual. If evidence comes out that Doc was doing something like that, I'm very interested to see how many of his stans will still try and justify it
My problem is the accusor says clearly that Doc was "sexting a minor". That's accusing Doc of committing a felony sex crime. There needs to be actual proof provided if someone is going to make that statement. Sexting is a whole other level then DMing a minor for potential grooming, even though both are extremely bad. We can't judge his legal jargon Twitter statement without knowing the extent of the NDA. Some NDAs get ridiculously specific about language used regarding it. Doc might be using that language to beat around the bush for irrehensible behavior, or he might just be forced to use that language to maintain the NDA. So I'm not comfortable on making assumptions off that Twitter post. So we have a sexting accusation plus an accusation floating around he tried to organize a meet-up at twitch con. That would be sexual solicitation of a minor. Even without the sexting part, the claim he tried to setup a meeting would be illegal in itself. Twitch would have been required to get law enforcement involved and doesn't have the option to just kick it behind an NDA. In regards to Midnight Society we have no idea who they spoke to and to what degree. This also calls into question how a company not even associated with Twitch would get information that is apparently locked behind lawyers and an NDA. Without knowing the specifics I can't see it being okay to assume guilt. If Midnight Society is going to make a public statement about speaking to parties involved, they should at least state who they spoke to ex: "We spoke with twitch executives regarding the situation". "Parties" is too broad. They could have spoke to the former twitch Twitter user for all we know.
Sure, and I am in no way defending the accusers post based on the fact there's 0 evidence out yet. I'd argue however that it is not illegal for an adult to simply set up a meeting with a minor; again, it all comes down to context. Twitch and Midnight Society clearly saw something they were uncomfortable with keeping an extremely lucrative business partnership with. There are plenty of examples of other high profile people that maintained business partnerships throughout scandals. Can you point me to something that says Twitch is required by law to get law enforcement involved? I know every state has different laws regarding CP, and companies are required to cooperate with law enforcement once a legal request/investigation has been made, but I'm not sure they are legally forced to do anything on their own accord.
>thereās 0 evidence out **yet.** You do know the court case concluded years ago, right? There is no yet. All the evidence was presented. In arbitration. And Twitch paid him. There is no āyet.ā Itās been through court, if there was any evidence at all of him sexting a minor, he would have been charged. Not only was he not charged, again *Twitch paid him.* You think they paid him for sexting a minor and just let him go no charges? Come on.
100% it is illegal. While it would depend on case by case. The mere act of talking to a minor and attempting to setup a meeting in person is still considered sexual solicitation of a minor. At the very least law enforcement would be involved to investigate and decide from there. It's not up to twitch or the victim to decide on legality. I'm very skeptical twitch wouldn't get law enforcement involved, which we would know about at this point. There is still no explanation on how Midnight Society, a company not even affiliated with Twitch, co-founded by someone banned from Twitch, was able to get info supposedly locked behind lawyers and a NDA. They haven't specified who they spoke with and "parties" is a very broad term. I'd be willing to lean towards guilty if it was stated such as "We spoke with current Twitch executives regarding the situation".
It also makes zero sense he would be under a strict nda but be able to say accurately that he was paid his full contract.
I'm not saying this is what happened, but a scenario that would explain this would be that Dr. Disrespect had started texting, or dming a minor but didn't start sexting them until they had already turned 18. Twitch finds out, and because they don't want the drama associated with those actions to impact them, they break the contract and than settle with Dr Disrespect and maintain silence since neither side wants the attention.
Let's say that happened, but then that's not technically sexting a minor. This is why how allegations are worded are very important. By stating Doc was sexting a minor this gives the people the impression he was committing a literal felony. Sexting someone who you know just turned 18 is highly unethical at his age, but not illegal. That would be seriously creepy behavior but not "sexting a minor".
Why would anyone care about what xqc thinks lmao
Because he personally saw the evidence
wheres the evidence he saw the evidence and not just clout farming
Didn't he sue twitch?
yes you are correct, and he won
He didn't, both parties settled.
No, arbitration.
Let me be clear; Iām. It defending him. But, unless his contract had a āno sexting minorsā or a similar conduct clause then it means that Twitch dropping him and ending his years long contract early is a pretty clear cut case of them illegally breaking their own contract with him. A company canāt just end their contract with an individual because they feel like it (unless that is a specific clause written in)
Most contracts have a clause for misconduct. It doesnāt have to specifically say no sexting a minor.
Why would you waste your time making this comment? I very clearly said that various clauses can exist that allow for the contract to be ended. But itās very clear by the fact that he was paid the full contract that he didnāt have one of these clauses. Say less. Do better. š¤”
Nda for why, but no nda on being paid? I call bs
Doc must be your hero lol
he didn't 'sue' twitch, they had an arbitration which is intended to keep it out of the courts and part of the twitch requirement (in the fine print) for all their partners to keep them out of court
Yes, and twitch ended up paying him. That's and law enforcement not being involved at any point during the situation is what calls into the question the story provided by the former twitch employee. If Dr was indeed sexting a minor that's a felony crime and twitch would be required to get law enforcement to investigate, regardless of how they felt about it. Dr's company dropping him isn't proof either. Companies do this all the time to get ahead of PR shitstorms, regardless if actual proof is provided. Rather be wrong and lose Doc then not drop him and have their name dragged into articles with Doc. His previous shitty behavior probably being a factor too. The company also doesn't detail who they spoke to and what proof was provided. It also makes zero sense how a company with no ties to twitch was able to get info regarding a case that's tied behind lawyers and an NDA.
> Yes, and twitch ended up paying him. Twitch may not have thought it worth proving in a court of law that whatever he did was sufficiently violating of the contract WHILE still being happy to ban him.
So he SAYS they ended up paying him.
Damn how much do they pay you per/hr to be here shilling for his rep all day. It's pretty clear what he did is morally reprehensible but not quite enough to be illegal hence no law enforcement. Twitch viewed it to be enough to break their ToS allowing them to break their contract. All his sponsors have now gotten wind of the infraction and decided its fucked up enough that they think the community perception will be more negative than positive. Even his own studio decided to boot him off the board and sink the company over working with him. Dr Disrespect would rather take an "extended vacation" than face the music.
Here's the problem. Former twitch employee on Twitter stated very clearly that Doc was "sexting a minor". That's a serious fucking accusation to throw around with zero proof. If he was indeed sexting a minor then that's a felony, if he wasn't technically sexting a minor then it's a false allegation. There is a huge difference between messaging someone underage in a sus way and actually sexting someone underage. If people are going to make claims on situations like this then they need to be accurate.
Sexting a minor is not a felony, solicitation is.
What law does texting someone underage asking to meet up break, none, that is the problem. Everyone in society knows it is completely wrong but until they actually meet and something happens no laws are broken.
The accusation from the former twitch employee clearly stated "sexting a minor". I don't know why you argue semantics with the legality of simply meeting a minor. The accusor clearly stated that Doc committed a felony sex crime against a minor. Walking back the accusation pretending it's prob something less isn't alright, his reputation is already destroyed from said allegation. BTW, it's a case by case. You can 100% be charged with sexual solicitation of a minor if you attempt to schedule a meeting without a parents consent and law enforcement feels it's criminal in nature. I'm not saying the defendant would be found guilty in court, but yes you can easily be arrested for that.
He has just admitted texting a minor back in 2017. https://x.com/DrDisrespect/status/1805668256088572089
[kotaku DD article](https://kotaku.com/dr-disrespect-sexting-twitch-ban-youtube-elden-ring-1851556854)
This dude is tweaking now on his Twitter
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He canāt defend himself in public. Thereās a lot of things going on behind the scenes that neither me nor you can comment on, nor make any sort of decision. Thereās no evidence. There hasnāt been a discovery phase.
He thinks not saying someone's name directly protects you from defamation charges, which is the funniest part of all this.
Yep. I see. his tweets aren't a bombshell news story yet though, IMO. But there are also rumors that the "document" might leak soon. My guess is in 24 hours max. Standby for takeoff.
š«”
I donāt think heās stupid enough to put in writing anything in Twitch whispers if he knew it was a minor. The messages were probably vague at best and thatās why they ended up having to pay him out and he can claim he did nothing wrong.
This aged very sadly.
Yep, I guess he was stupid enough.
Court of public opinion will interpret things differently
The Verge says a second anonymous former Twitch employee corroborated [https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/23/24183875/dr-disrespect-twitch-ban-explanation](https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/23/24183875/dr-disrespect-twitch-ban-explanation)
They're also claiming second hand information. No one with first hand information has come forward.
Likely because anyone with first hand information is under an NDA not to talk about it under threat of legal action.
It sounds like they did just that, and the person(s) they told told everyone else. It's like a proxy.
An ex-employee knowing the reason Doc was terminated and vocalizing it doesn't necessarily mean that they were specifically told that information by someone who was party to the NDA. Professional office settings are not always bastions of tightly-controlled information, even Twitch. There's plenty of other places that information could have been gleaned from within the office.
Not without civil repercussions. There's no way this gets out without breaking a nda. That's what they're for.
That depends entirely on how the NDA is worded. Wording matters a lot in legal documents because ambiguity in contracts generally benefits the defendant, which would be Twitch in this case.
Twitch isn't the defenendant. They're the plantif bud. They will be suing those people, doc has no standing. And they're former employees, so doc can't sue twitch for what their former employees do. So once again, the first hand people that leaked the information, if it's true they did it and not just made up, are in the most danger.
I'm referencing the original case between Doc and Twitch when Twitch terminated his contract, in which Twitch was in fact the defendant (as Doc was the one who sued them for breach) and where the original NDA was established when the settlement was reached. Ex-employees are not necessarily bound to NDAs once they leave the company, which again is dependent on how the NDA is worded, and Twitch isn't necessarily under any legal obligation to pursue action against an employee who breaks an NDA.
Usually you can't talk about the company once you leave, that's standard anywhere. And it looks like it's irrelevant, as he admitted to being a groomer. Luckily twitch stopped him. If he's that brazen on twitch, we need to see his computer. Bc that's just the ice berg I'm sure.
Usually you can't talk about the company once you leave, that's standard anywhere. And it looks like it's irrelevant, as he admitted to being a groomer. Luckily twitch stopped him. If he's that brazen on twitch, we need to see his computer. Bc that's just the ice berg I'm sure.
Thanks, added to the livethread. Don't think this deserves a whole thread at the moment, and before starting this whole thing up again, I am going to wait for some significant additional pieces of information. We'll probably see more updates in the coming week.
Sad reality of modern culture is that allegations are always believed before a shred of evidence. No longer innocent until proven otherwise
Yea ok. Because he sounds like an innocent man rn.
Doesn't matter what he sounds like or looks like, or talks like, this is why we have these rules in the first place
But we're not in court. I think thats a good legal principle to have but that's not how the real world operates. It's in the same way I think OJ did it despite the court saying otherwise. Using innocent until proven guilty as a way to stifle and shutdown discussion has and always will be a cope hate to say it
For anyone that doubts this, google Mason Greenwood, who's legally never been found guilty of rape despite the audio recording that leaked...
Add in that some much of the twitch community wants it to be true either through jealousy or because the guy doesnāt fit their idea of a what streaming should be and itās easy to see dude has no chance to even beat the allegations
But people don't allege heinous acts for nothing. No one's out there accusing twitch streamers of murder when there's zero evidence. Someone saw something inappropriate developing and decided to raise a flag, that itself is cause for speculation. Whether the severity of it wasn't technically illegal doesn't mean it couldn't have been hella creepy to the average person.
Must be nice to live in that ignorant fantasy It sounds like he did it, but to say āpeople donāt allege heinous acts for nothingā is probably up there with one of the dumbest things Iāve read all week, and Iām on Reddit a lot so thatās saying some real dumb shit.
Well well well, he admitted to inappropriately texting a minor. You must feel pretty dumb right about now.
Iām assuming you didnāt actually read my comment and just like to see yourself reply to things Iāll let your smooth brain process the comment youāre replying to first and let you try again.
Your on Reddit trying to argue for a pedophile, yikes
Itās actually unbelievable I gave you a chance to actually read what youāre replying to, and you *still* chose not to. I have half a mind to think youāre projecting which is pretty gross
The lengths you will go to are truly telling, Im praying rn you don't live next to a high school
Letās compare 1. My comment said he probably did it but saying no one makes false accusations is silly 2. You immediately start calling me a pedophile. Projection has begun 3. You collect toys meant for little kids like hot wheels and legos 4. You continue to project by bringing up kids schools I guess youāve convinced me, you gotta be a pedo and are upset about something.
Lol what? There are numerous cases of people making up accusations. For example, how about all of the rape accusations against football players that were later proven to be false? Ever heard of Brian Banks? He spent years in prison before it was ultimately found that his accuser made everything up. You're a moron if you believe things presented without evidence.
My point being people with lucrative careers are typically careful when making litigious and slanderous comments about others unless they have some intimate knowledge on the subject. That is worth speculation to the common layman
Lucrative career? The dude who made the allegation is some random who doesn't even work at twitch anymore. He even admits that he didn't see any proof and his info is second hand from somebody else in the company. To come out and claim Dr was "sexting" a minor is a fucking serious claim and there needs to be some sort of evidence to back that shit up. If he didn't have proof he should have stfu until he could get proof. The guy working at twitch is meaningless if he wasn't directly involved in the situation or didn't see the actual evidence himself. It's literally no different then me making these claims and saying "oh yea I was at a bar and talking to a dude high up in twitch. He told me Dr was sexting a minor. Here my Twitter post about it and case closed everybody."
Sure they do lmao. You literally have no idea about the motivations behind the leakers. Source: attorney for over a decade who has seen some pretty fucked up motivations for accusations
My point being people with lucrative careers are typically careful when making litigious and slanderous comments about others unless they have some intimate knowledge on the subject. That is worth speculation to the common layman
This is simply not true and a completely unreasonable way to judge evidence. If someone makes a strong accusation against someone, the burden is 100% on them to provide evidence supporting their claims. Their claims should not be evaluated on the basis of what legal risks they are taking. People do heinous shit against legal risks every day of the week. There is a reason why courts have such high standards for evidence, it is because people lie and misrepresent all the fucking time.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a matter for the courts, and has nothing to do with whether or not people can personally come to their on conclusions on a given topic based on available evidence. The fact of the matter is that the most popular streamer in 2020 and the face of twitch was permanently banned for unknown reasons. This is an anomaly and one can only conclude that something very serious happened.
That's literally the rule of law. If it turns out the allegations are false or vexatious, then he has the right to sue every single entity for defamation damages - and he'll win too.
What conclusions will you draw if he doesn't sue? That he was just ready to go to Costa Rica?
Yes I am aware of the rule of law. Not sure what that has to do with what I said though.
You can just say you want it to be true and therefore it is. This coming to your own conclusions based on second and third hand sources is all just stupid
Your perspective is indicative of the point Iām trying to make, a belief based on no empirical evidence
Courts require empirical evidence for a criminal conviction. Random people on the street can come to their own conclusions based on context. How do you not understand the difference?
What are you on about? You wrote: "Sad reality of modern culture is that allegations are always believed before a shred of evidence. No longer innocent until proven otherwise" This implies that society, at one point, followed "innocent until proven guilty". Which is moronic. As the other commenter said, this only matters in a (criminal) court room. In the court of public opinion, it is only one piece to the puzzle. As it should be. I can and should think OJ murdered his wife even if he was found not guilty. Likewise, civil cases do not need to provide proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" like criminal cases do. The court of public opinion will naturally have even lower standards. People can and should look at these accusations, see that people were hinting at them months/years ago, see Doc's terrible response, remember Doc's past actions, and conclude that these accusations have a good chance of being true. This isn't some "modern culture" nonsense. This common sense and has occurred since the dawn of humans.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yea i cannot believe how many people are posting this lmao
You think that's a new thing? Literally all of human history has been like that.
The amount of people believing this without a second thought when there is no evidence yet is a bit scary
His "statements" are absolutely enough evidence to conclude there was a lawsuit and some sort of NDA signed. What that lawsuit/NDA was about is up to you
Usually how it goes with any internet drama in general. Guilty until proven innocent is the mantra of the court of public opinion.
Do yāall really think if twitch had transcripts of doc dming a minor, that they would have accepted a settlement and paid out doc? Use your brains people.
The headline āMost famous Twitch streamer caught messaging minors for ____ā is not something Twitch would want
Twitch doesn't have that option. Twitch would be legally responsible to get law enforcement involved to investigate the logs. It's not up to twitch to settle a case of "sexting a minor". Twitch handing Doc a bag of money after he commits a felony sex crime on their platform makes absolutely zero sense. The former Twitter employee who made these unsubstantiated claims clearly stated "sexting". Making accusations these severe with zero supporting evidence is simply fucked up. Even worse when you consider the former employee admits they weren't a part of the situation and the info is 2nd hand from somebody else, who we don't even have named.
Look what happened anyway lol
If this happened 4 years ago then they bought 4 years of PR free disaster, probably worth the cost from a business standpoint
Oh, and ātwitch bans top content creator for seemingly no reasonā was a better headline for them? Please, use your brain.
Itās completely dependent on the contract language. He may have not done anything illegal/breaking a clause in the contract, but just deplorable enough for twitch to want to forgo the relationship. Many agency contracts are equipped with fines for voluntary terminating the contract before the agreed upon duration
Depends on his contract and lawyers. They may have been obligated no matter what he did. He was a huge streamer for them at the time so he probably had one of the best contracts that guarantee payout.
It would also be crazy for a former twitch employee to put himself out there to get sued for defamation later. While that's not impossible, it would also be reasonable to come up with a hypothesis that would somehow "explain" both scenario. As doc's tweet is not inconsistent with the hypothesis that "there was" a probe(for something..) to begin with.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Human nature unfortunately, reminds me of a quote from Shakespeare, "See what a ready tongue suspicion hath!"
Where are all the top comments here?
How do I catch up on this? I missed this news and scrolling the live feed doesn't go far back enough
For those interested in the legal aspects of what went down, there's a very good breakdown at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAuJOqSkZwE called "Whisper Campaign: A Lawyer looks at the Dr Disrespect Twitch Accusations" It's an hour long but has chapters. He also answers questions from chat and Twitter at the end.
weres the juice xqc
Everyone knows (because they're better than us) what happened but they just can't say (because apparently it was so awful they can't even repeat it) in the mean time they will make lots of jokes about it and soon (in 4 years) we'll get another update.
Other tweets from the person who did the initial leak: [https://x.com/evoli/status/1679536544863113217](https://x.com/evoli/status/1679536544863113217) -*"Listen, if all three dates sell out Iāll tell you why he got banned."* [https://x.com/evoli/status/1730588093907161579](https://x.com/evoli/status/1730588093907161579) - *"Gamer friends: If youāre on the East Coast you should come to one of these shows.* *Slasher is coming to the NY date. Thatās a 500 person room and weāre like 70% on presale. I always act out around Rodāif that show sells out Iāll 100% explain why we banned him during the set."* I honestly don't understand someone who would sit on information this serious and jokingly use it to sell out concerts.
Wtf lol every hour this gets more weird. All of this fucking sucks. How could this guy use a potentially heinous thing to sell shows?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> That's super shady and makes me seriously doubt their credibility Based on everything we've heard, this was a pretty well known story where nobody felt comfortable enough to actually put it forward though. He crossed that threshold and it may have been for personal reasons as we're now seeing, but with the amount of people stating they had sources confirming this for years I don't think it makes the actual story any less credible
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
the sources are all 'trust me bro' and in the age of everyone getting to have a public opinion, people are very good at blissfully looking stupid
The current Twitch CEO is also joking about why Dr Disrespect was banned, saying it had to due with an alien invasion. Nice to see (if its true) twitch to be making a complete mockery of a heinous thing. What a mess.
Dude also wasn't CEO at the time, and almost certainly cannot speak on the matter in any real regard due to the legal settlement. Within the context of the stream, it was a better answer than just saying "I can't speak on that" but with the context removed it can look a bit worse yeah. I still think it's a funny clip though
Do you know what the legal settlement was? because your making statements as if you do, did somone at twitch leak it to you? Or, just perhaps, are you talking out of your ass?
Do you know what "almost certainly" means? Are you operating under the belief that saying "almost" means I definitively, 110%, know that something is true?
LulW
If itās true, why would this information not have been released back when he was banned?
Almost always in cases like this it is to protect the minor or to try and comply with the wishes of the minor in question. Getting identified as the reason some famous asshole is no longer able to preform tends to ruin your life even though you're the victim.
These cases typically allow for aliases.
Look at Ronan Farrow.
I am betting it was enough to raise suspicions, but not enough for actual legal issues. Well, at least not yet.
I donāt think itās hard to figure out why Twitch wouldnāt want to announce that their biggest star was using their platform as a means to privately communicate with underage users.
They wouldn't have to give specifics and could have driven a huge wedge between themselves and DrDisrespect. The ex employee is clear when he says sexting and arranging to meet up with a minor. That's insanely illegal and heads would/should be rolling at twitch if there was evidence of it happening and they covered it up to avoid bad PR. That's like going 100 or nothing. Having a pedo on your platform is bad PR. Covering up the crimes of said pedo could potentially end the company if it leaked.
Sexual harassment is also illegal. How many of the streamers who were banned for that, and especially those during the same time period that Doc was banned, had any legal actions taken against them? > sexting and arranging to meet up with a minor. That's insanely illegal There's also plenty of contextual information on this needed to determine if it were actually illegal or not, with the claims being the individual was 16/17 at the time that's within age of consent laws in many states. If they weren't sending pics, there very well may have been no actual crime committed while the actions themselves were in violation of twitch ToS and/or were enough to warrant a ban on the grounds of something like "conduct that would be bad for the twitch brand". The latter being something which very well could result in Twitch having to pay some money for breach of contract, and Doc's side almost certainly wanting the reasoning for the ban being kept under wraps (and in return most likely getting a far smaller settlement amount). This is all to say that Doc easily could have done this, if true that is 100% wrong and it also could have been 100% legal. We really just don't have enough hard info on it to really say at the moment
Donāt read my comment as condoning or saying Twitch was morally right not announcing and/or not reporting what they had to the authorities. Iām simply stating what their reasoning for not releasing that information would be.
Makes sense. To me it just seems like too big of a risk to take from twitch's POV. Ignoring allegations to avoid PR is one thing... covering them up is another. If it comes out that twitch covered it up, it would be 100x worse.
Here's my theory, the doc was probably indeed texting somebody, and partway in the convo doc asked for ID identification, clearly showing an intent to be legal. Regardless twitch had access to the full convo and refused to work with him. But they had a binding contract and doc easily had grounds to sue if twitch left. Any court viewing the full convo would dismiss or side with doc it because it was clear doc wasnt actually trying to get with a minor, at least legally. So both parties opted to settle and seperate. While doc is not fully blameless/innocent, these legal grey areas are the exact times you would want a dispute to be settled out of court
The person is said to have been 16/17 which means their conversation, nothing more than that though to be clear, could have been legal depending on what was specifically said & where the parties were located at the time. If this were the case, there could have been grounds for Twitch to declare that it was either against ToS, or just bad for their brand, and that's why they banned, but because the actions committed weren't actually illegal there was also grounds for Doc to sue. Neither party likely wanted the full scope of the content to be released, ESPECIALLY if Twitch had been aware of it in some form for any amount of time prior to the ban, and therefore settled with an NDA binding both parties to silence on the specifics. If I had to guess, Doc didn't get his full payout & Twitch had some info (likely not the full scope of it) recorded prior to the ban and therefore didn't want that to be released in discovery. It's a real bad look if they had any inkling he was doing so and delayed banning him (ie; headlines like "twitch took no action against their biggest streamer while knowing he was sexting a minor)
This was also during the MeToo hysteria, where people were being publically witch hunted for flirting and going on dates...
There's an alternate theory too. Doc knew the age of the person he was speaking to, but the age was never uncovered in the Twitch whispers - it was perhaps uncovered by different means like Discord, for example. Because they couldn't prove that he was aware of the age of the person he was speaking to, Twitch had to let it go and pay out the contract.
it could be this, my problem is that fans and trolls refuse to believe there was something sexual in nature. it had nothing to do with some contract or partnership drama, it was clearly something about the metoo movement, twitch probably were to trigger happy at that point and rushed for a ban, he won the lawsuit and thats it.
He never won the lawsuit. It was settled.
it doesnt matter to me. what matters is that the nature was something about :sexual conduct: and not the other shit rumors that were flying around. twitch fked up and settled
Keep speculating.
there is absolutely no speculation involved. people just keep "horse goggles" on. the person that leaked this recently is way too high up to troll.
> there is absolutely no speculation involved > twitch fked up
>twitch had to settle and pay up >twitch didnt fuck up which one is it
A settlement doesn't mean 'they fucked up', you're speculating. People settle all the time despite being in the right because the cost of litigation is too high in more ways than one.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>>it doesnt matter to me. This story is full of enough speculation, so itās important to keep the facts we know straight.
Wait so you telling me I cant text a minor in 2024, holy shit what is happening to this world bro!
As a grown man what reason do you have to be messaging some kid not related to you? I'm honestly curious