admitting to calling a child a racist slur<\/a><\/span>. She amassed over $800,000 on a crowdfunding site and also pointed to her First Amendment rights.<\/p>\nA blurring of the lines<\/h2>\n
As more livestreamers find that being performative with bigoted language can draw big audiences \u2014 and big bucks \u2014 the line is blurring between freedom of expression and people\u2019s right to feel safe. Even within livestreaming communities, some assert they have a right to say whatever they want to and to make money, while others support having boundaries. <\/p>\n
Racial justice advocates worry that allowing people to profit from such videos only encourages and normalizes racist and otherwise shocking antics. As for regulation, social media can sometimes feel lawless, as it\u2019s generally left to platforms to self-regulate and hold users accountable for obscene and abusive words. But at some point, laws for offline behavior can trump online freedoms, experts say.<\/p>\n
According to the criminal complaint, Eatherly, 28, and Fox initially were involved in a verbal altercation. Eatherly reached for a gun inside his right jacket pocket and the two men started to fight. Fox was shot multiple times and later underwent emergency surgery at a hospital.<\/p>\n
In an audio stream apparently Eatherly recorded just after the shooting and later posted online, he said he fired in self-defense.<\/p>\n
Freedom of speech or hate speech?<\/h2>\n
Eatherly has defended his videos on the crowdsourcing site as \u201cmild jokes, unfiltered thoughts.\u201d While he has sometimes defended using a racial slur as \u201cedgy, harmless humor,\u201d Eatherly wrote, \u201cI know it\u2019s controversial, but it\u2019s my right to speak freely.\u201d<\/p>\n
But legal experts say not all speech is protected.<\/p>\n
Speaking generally about Eatherly\u2019s social media offerings, David Raybin, a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor, said although Eatherly repeatedly references free speech in the posts, his actions in them may actually be crimes under Tennessee law. Because Eatherly was known to openly carry a pistol while berating people, the combination could constitute assault, he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou don\u2019t have to touch someone,\u201d Raybin said. Assault can be charged if you \u201ccreate fear of imminent harm.\u201d<\/p>\n
Brandon Tucker, senior director of government affairs for civil rights organization Color of Change, said \u201crace-baiting\u201d content creates immediate risk for Black bystanders. There\u2019s a \u201cpower imbalance\u201d with a livestreamer who is attracting an audience.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe same free speech that this individual wants to advocate for doesn\u2019t recognize the chilling of my response to know that I cannot react in any reasonable way because my face, my safety, my family\u2019s safety is in jeopardy and being broadcast to an audience that most likely aligns with this person\u2019s views,\u201d Tucker said.<\/p>\n
These streaming platforms cannot claim neutrality if they\u2019re essentially financially rewarding users for using racist language to agitate, he said.<\/p>\n
Even some other livestreamers say Eatherly crosses the line.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen you get to terrorizing and doing all this hate speech, that\u2019s when the line gets drawn, especially when nobody is bothering you,\u201d said James Champion, a 41-year-old Los Angeles-based livestreamer and content creator who goes by the preferred online moniker SendaRoni Sloscru. \u201cWhatever platform is allowing him to get away with that is basically race-baiting, and I just think in this day and time you got people who are going to laugh at it or people who will beat you to death about it.\u201d<\/p>\n
Platform regulation can feel like the \u2018Wild West\u2019<\/h2>\n
Eatherly was streaming on Pump.fun, a platform where users create and trade cryptocurrency tokens. Token creators have used the livestream feature to gain notice in some outrageous ways, such as by performing dangerous stunts and threatening violence. In November 2024, Pump.fun paused the feature because people were violating its terms of service by uploading abusive, obscene or dishonest messages.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s not clear what was done to improve that situation before it was reinstated,\u201d said Kate Ruane, director of the free expression program at the Center for Democracy and Technology. \u201cIf you\u2019re relying on users to report and none of the users that are viewing these livestreams disagree or have a problem with what they\u2019re seeing, you might not be getting the user reports that you should.\u201d<\/p>\n
Representatives for Pump.fun didn\u2019t respond to a Wednesday email seeking comment. <\/p>\n
Brandon Golob, a criminology, law and society professor at University of California, Irvine, said the number of livestreaming platforms has grown, but self-regulation can still feel like \u2018the Wild West.\u2019<\/p>\n
The First Amendment, however, is not a blanket shield from real-world laws against harassment, hate crimes and provocation.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe reality is that when it involves two private individuals, state law is going to govern,\u201d Golob said. \u201cWe just want to make sure that we\u2019re not conflating government responsibility or government censorship with private accountability.\u201d<\/p>\n
SendaRoni said he\u2019s been livestreaming for a few years and has \u201ctens of thousands\u201d of followers across a number of social media platforms.<\/p>\n
\u201cI usually talk about social issues. I speak on trending events, news,\u201d he said, adding that a number of livestreamers addressed Eatherly\u2019s antics following the shooting in Clarksville.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think he tried to find people he\u2019d get a reaction out of,\u201d SendaRoni said. \u201cWhen you do things such as that the end results are not going to be exciting. You\u2019re acting like no one has a reason not to be disgusted and you made a mockery of yourself.\u201d<\/p>\n
Leading livestream platforms such as YouTube and Twitch do have an infrastructure for content moderation \u2014 and community guidelines barring hate speech and slurs. They utilize automated detection and user reports. <\/p>\n
Both Golob and Ruane advise people to know their rights on how to handle livestreamers who are making them uncomfortable. Ruane says it\u2019s OK \u201cto film them right back.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cMake sure that you\u2019re sharing a different version of the story because whatever First Amendment rights they might be exercising, you have them too,\u201d Ruane said. \u201cMake sure that is being published at the same time and that can serve as a form of pushback in and of itself.\u201d<\/p>\n
___<\/p>\n
This story was updated to correct that the shooting happened May 13.<\/p>\n
___<\/p>\n
Tang reported from Phoenix and Williams from Detroit. Associated Press reporter Travis Loller in Nashville contributed to this story.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n