5 ms·

There was an interesting event recently that happened to another live-streamer named Arab Andy. Arab Andy streams himself walking around with a speaker strapped

by arcsin 8y ago

There was an interesting event recently that happened to another live-streamer named Arab Andy. Arab Andy streams himself walking around with a speaker strapped on that plays text-to-speech and audio clips of whatever his viewers send him in their twitch donations. One viewer sent him a sound clip of a bomb countdown and detonation, and Arab Andy was subsequently arrested and last I heard was possibly facing prison time on a felony charge. Personally I don't think he should have to go to prison, but it's an interesting question what, if anything, should happen in cases like this. Here's a video of the incident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVWX7r1WQLg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVWX7r1WQLg

canardlaquay 8y ago
"Arab Andy" cared more about the donation than his own life. He clearly let the bomb sound happen on purpose for the sake of fame. He didn't even bother muting it or at least muffling it. Weakly moaning "It's TTS!" (Text-to-speech) as an excuse to the officer that arrested him not so long later is enough of a proof that this guy was disconnected from reality and just doing that for the money. It doesn't matter where you're coming from, you just don't play a bomb countdown - especially not in a room crowded full of people. You're scaring people on purpose, and that's called terrorism. He deserves that prison sentence.
- mieseratte 8y ago
  > You're scaring people on purpose, and that's called terrorism. Well, no, that's not terrorism. At least not in terms of criminal charges[0]. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism#Unite...
- icsllaf 8y ago
  Isn't one of the main caveats of the first amendment that you can't say "Fire" or "Bomb" in a crowded theater? As someone who watches live streams normally, it's weird to see the clashing of the online world with its disdain for social norms and encouragement of casual racism mix in with the normal day to day lives of people. A future where a good chunk of people walking on the streets are disconnected from the people around them and instead are trying to please a faceless mob which demands that life constantly be reality TV is a weird one to think about but I honestly believe that this is a future that is possible.
  - mieseratte 8y ago
    > Isn't one of the main caveats of the first amendment that you can't say "Fire" or "Bomb" in a crowded theater? It's a complicated and, IMO, interesting topic.[0][1] [0] - https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... [1] - https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/2018/06/fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/2018/06/fi...
    - notafraudster 8y ago
      I confess to having read the Popehat link quickly (I do not have audio right now to be able to listen to the podcast) and it is possible I missed some subtext, but the link seems more to speak to that the quote was made in a context many today would find disagreeable as part of a series of bad rulings, and that it has subsequently often been invoked to support restrictions on speech as though the existence of some restriction on speech automatically justifies others. Both points are well taken. But this is quite literally a situation where a person shouts about a fake threat so as to cause alarm in a crowded fora -- the article does not seem to argue that doing so would be legal or that it would not be a permissible restriction on speech. So I defer to anyone who knows more than I do about speech law -- to be clear, it is still impermissible to (falsely) shout fire in a crowded theater, right?
      - mieseratte 8y ago
        > it is still impermissible to (falsely) shout fire in a crowded theater, right? The underlying point is that, it's a complicated topic that is not easily answered. This is like saying "Shooting someone is illegal, right?" Well, it's complicated. You have Murder 1, Murder 2, (sometimes more), Manslaughter (Voluntary, or Involuntary), and you have shootings of self-defense which are legal. It entirely depends on the circumstances under which you shout "Fire!" and the outcome of that situation. There are legal principles involving whether or not you caused harm, whether or not you intended to cause harm, whether or not you reasonably knew it could cause harm but proceeded anyway. These questions will have outcome on which charges are applicable, if any are at all. Should you shout fire in a crowded theater, and folks stampede. Expect to be charged for inciting a riot or at least disturbing the peace. Should nothing happen? You might be asked to leave and not come back by staff and have a no-trespass order, you may even get picked up on a disturbing the peace charge. One of the "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride" situations.
- LgWoodenBadger 8y ago
  What do you think would (or for you, should) happen if Orson Welles performed War of the Worlds today?
  - digi_owl 8y ago
    The device would show a "radio play" notice for the duration of the performance?
- hackerman12345 8y ago
  So if someone calls you and you're using speakerphone and they say something bad you should be arrested?
ManFromUranus 8y ago
I saw another one where somebody sent arab andy a clip of the n-word being repeated over and over 50 times while he is on the bus. A very liberal looking white guy in his 40s threatened to stab andy so he got off the bus immediately.
- QuotedForTruth 8y ago
  How does one look very liberal? Ive seen that clip. The guy was either super unstable or just trying to "out crazy" the streamer and scare him away.
  - ManFromUranus 8y ago
    The guy was unstable yes, but he also looked super liberal. It's tough to articulate, but it exists nonetheless, it's like asking what strawberries taste like. Perhaps I can't articulate it but that doesn't mean nobody can taste them or the taste doesn't exist. Some facets about him that I don't care to enumerate gave me that impression. He was trying to appear crazy yes and he did brandish a knife as well. You are being far too charitable with him. He essentially committed assault by creating the impression that andy was not physically safe and that he may use a knife against him.
    - lovich 8y ago
      Having a machine repeat slurs constantly also makes people feel unsafe. It doesn't sound clear cut
      - ManFromUranus 8y ago
        Interesting that you don't cite brandishing a knife as unsafe, it's a text to speech voice that's the REAL problem.
ferongr 8y ago
The absolute state of USians
janlaureys 8y ago
I once posted a timelapse video of my commute on facebook and people were calling me out for not blurring license plates. This guy just walks around all day live streaming the life of random people ? How is that not a clear violation of privacy rules ? Disclaimer: Am European.
- mieseratte 8y ago
  IANAL but in the US, you have no (legal) expectation of privacy when you're in a public place / visible from a public place.
- Semaphor 8y ago
  Not sure about license plates, but when Awkwards Travels (much smaller channel, a couple live streaming traveling, mostly SEA) were here in Germany, they had to be way more careful about what they showed.
chadmeister 8y ago
Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre is not protected free speech, which is exactly what this kid did in the video. I think this is a pretty clear cut case where someone does deserve jail time.
- mieseratte 8y ago
  I've already posted this in another reply, but the "Fire in a Crowded Theater" bit no where near as clear cut as you've claimed.[0] [0] - https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

by arcsin 8y ago

canardlaquay 8y ago

"Arab Andy" cared more about the donation than his own life. He clearly let the bomb sound happen on purpose for the sake of fame. He didn't even bother muting it or at least muffling it. Weakly moaning "It's TTS!" (Text-to-speech) as an excuse to the officer that arrested him not so long later is enough of a proof that this guy was disconnected from reality and just doing that for the money. It doesn't matter where you're coming from, you just don't play a bomb countdown - especially not in a room crowded full of people. You're scaring people on purpose, and that's called terrorism. He deserves that prison sentence.

mieseratte 8y ago
> You're scaring people on purpose, and that's called terrorism. Well, no, that's not terrorism. At least not in terms of criminal charges[0]. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism#Unite...
icsllaf 8y ago
Isn't one of the main caveats of the first amendment that you can't say "Fire" or "Bomb" in a crowded theater? As someone who watches live streams normally, it's weird to see the clashing of the online world with its disdain for social norms and encouragement of casual racism mix in with the normal day to day lives of people. A future where a good chunk of people walking on the streets are disconnected from the people around them and instead are trying to please a faceless mob which demands that life constantly be reality TV is a weird one to think about but I honestly believe that this is a future that is possible.
- mieseratte 8y ago
  > Isn't one of the main caveats of the first amendment that you can't say "Fire" or "Bomb" in a crowded theater? It's a complicated and, IMO, interesting topic.[0][1] [0] - https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... [1] - https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/2018/06/fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/2018/06/fi...
  - notafraudster 8y ago
    I confess to having read the Popehat link quickly (I do not have audio right now to be able to listen to the podcast) and it is possible I missed some subtext, but the link seems more to speak to that the quote was made in a context many today would find disagreeable as part of a series of bad rulings, and that it has subsequently often been invoked to support restrictions on speech as though the existence of some restriction on speech automatically justifies others. Both points are well taken. But this is quite literally a situation where a person shouts about a fake threat so as to cause alarm in a crowded fora -- the article does not seem to argue that doing so would be legal or that it would not be a permissible restriction on speech. So I defer to anyone who knows more than I do about speech law -- to be clear, it is still impermissible to (falsely) shout fire in a crowded theater, right?
    - mieseratte 8y ago
      > it is still impermissible to (falsely) shout fire in a crowded theater, right? The underlying point is that, it's a complicated topic that is not easily answered. This is like saying "Shooting someone is illegal, right?" Well, it's complicated. You have Murder 1, Murder 2, (sometimes more), Manslaughter (Voluntary, or Involuntary), and you have shootings of self-defense which are legal. It entirely depends on the circumstances under which you shout "Fire!" and the outcome of that situation. There are legal principles involving whether or not you caused harm, whether or not you intended to cause harm, whether or not you reasonably knew it could cause harm but proceeded anyway. These questions will have outcome on which charges are applicable, if any are at all. Should you shout fire in a crowded theater, and folks stampede. Expect to be charged for inciting a riot or at least disturbing the peace. Should nothing happen? You might be asked to leave and not come back by staff and have a no-trespass order, you may even get picked up on a disturbing the peace charge. One of the "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride" situations.
LgWoodenBadger 8y ago
What do you think would (or for you, should) happen if Orson Welles performed War of the Worlds today?
- digi_owl 8y ago
  The device would show a "radio play" notice for the duration of the performance?
hackerman12345 8y ago
So if someone calls you and you're using speakerphone and they say something bad you should be arrested?

ManFromUranus 8y ago

I saw another one where somebody sent arab andy a clip of the n-word being repeated over and over 50 times while he is on the bus. A very liberal looking white guy in his 40s threatened to stab andy so he got off the bus immediately.

QuotedForTruth 8y ago
How does one look very liberal? Ive seen that clip. The guy was either super unstable or just trying to "out crazy" the streamer and scare him away.
- ManFromUranus 8y ago
  The guy was unstable yes, but he also looked super liberal. It's tough to articulate, but it exists nonetheless, it's like asking what strawberries taste like. Perhaps I can't articulate it but that doesn't mean nobody can taste them or the taste doesn't exist. Some facets about him that I don't care to enumerate gave me that impression. He was trying to appear crazy yes and he did brandish a knife as well. You are being far too charitable with him. He essentially committed assault by creating the impression that andy was not physically safe and that he may use a knife against him.
  - lovich 8y ago
    Having a machine repeat slurs constantly also makes people feel unsafe. It doesn't sound clear cut
    - ManFromUranus 8y ago
      Interesting that you don't cite brandishing a knife as unsafe, it's a text to speech voice that's the REAL problem.

ferongr 8y ago

The absolute state of USians

janlaureys 8y ago

I once posted a timelapse video of my commute on facebook and people were calling me out for not blurring license plates. This guy just walks around all day live streaming the life of random people ? How is that not a clear violation of privacy rules ? Disclaimer: Am European.

mieseratte 8y ago
IANAL but in the US, you have no (legal) expectation of privacy when you're in a public place / visible from a public place.
Semaphor 8y ago
Not sure about license plates, but when Awkwards Travels (much smaller channel, a couple live streaming traveling, mostly SEA) were here in Germany, they had to be way more careful about what they showed.

chadmeister 8y ago

Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre is not protected free speech, which is exactly what this kid did in the video. I think this is a pretty clear cut case where someone does deserve jail time.

mieseratte 8y ago
I've already posted this in another reply, but the "Fire in a Crowded Theater" bit no where near as clear cut as you've claimed.[0] [0] - https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]