Some see white livestreamer’s freedom of speech claims as cover for race-baiting

A shooting involving a white livestreamer known for filming himself provoking people with racist words that left a Black man wounded has reignited debate over freedom of speech and content creators who monetize hate-filled interactions.

As more users of livestreaming social media platforms find being performative with bigoted language can draw big bucks, the line is blurring between freedom of expression and freedom for people to feel safe. Even within livestreaming communities, some assert they have a right to say whatever and earn revenue while others support having boundaries.

Racial justice advocates worry throwing money into the equation will only heighten and normalize racist antics. As for regulation, it can feel lawless out on the social media landscape. It is often left up to platforms to self-regulate and hold users accountable for obscene and abusive words. But, experts say, at some point laws for offline behavior can trump online freedoms.

Dalton Eatherly, who goes by the moniker “Chud the Builder,” is facing charges including attempted murder after allegedly shooting another man last week outside the Montgomery County Courthouse in Clarksville, Tennessee, authorities said. Eatherly, now held on a $1.25 million preliminary bond, has a full bond hearing scheduled Thursday.

Eatherly, 28, and the victim got into a “physical altercation that escalated to gunfire,” the local sheriff’s office said. A witness described the man, who was shot multiple times, as Black. Eatherly is white.

In an audio stream from just after the shooting, Eatherly said he shot in self-defense. It’s unclear if the men exchanged any words beforehand. His attorney, Jacob Fendley, didn’t comment on the charges when contacted by The Associated Press two days after Eatherly’s arrest.

Freedom of speech or hate speech?

An online fundraiser for Eatherly raised over $100,000 within a day for his legal assistance. He also has defended his videos on the crowdsourcing site as “mild jokes, unfiltered thoughts.”

While he has sometimes defended using a racial slur as “edgy, harmless humor,” Eatherly wrote, “I know it’s controversial, but it’s my right to speak freely.”

It is reminiscent of an incident from a year ago when a white Minnesota woman was captured on cellphone video admitting to calling a child a racist slur. She amassed over $800,000 on GiveSendGo and also pointed to her First Amendment rights.

The freedom of speech argument does not hold water in such instances, according to the 41-year-old live-streamer and content creator who goes by SendaRoni Sloscru online.

“When you get to terrorizing and doing all this hate speech, that’s when the line gets drawn, especially when nobody is bothering you,” said Los Angeles-based SendaRoni. “Whatever 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.”

“Race-baiting” content creates immediate risk for Black bystanders, said Brandon Tucker, senior director of government affairs for civil rights organization Color of Change. There’s a “power imbalance” with a livestreamer who is attracting an audience.

“The same free speech that this individual wants to advocate for doesn’t recognize the chilling of my response to know that I cannot react in any reasonable way because my face, my safety, my family’s safety is in jeopardy and being broadcast to an audience that most likely aligns with this person’s views,” Tucker said.

These streaming platforms cannot claim neutrality if they’re essentially financially rewarding users for using racist language to agitate, he said.

Platform regulation can feel like the ‘Wild West’

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 dangerous stunts and threatening violence. In November 2024, Pump.fun paused the feature because people were violating terms of service by uploading abusive, obscene or dishonest messages.

“It’s not clear what was done to improve that situation before it was reinstated,” said Kate Ruane, director of the free expression program at the Center for Democracy and Technology. “If you’re relying on users to report and none of the users that are viewing these livestreams disagree or have a problem with what they’re seeing, you might not be getting the user reports that you should.”

Pump.fun did not responded to an email sent Wednesday requesting comment.

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 ‘the Wild West.’

The First Amendment, however, is not a blanket shield from real-world laws against harassment, hate crimes and provocation.

“The reality is that when it involves two private individuals, state law is going to govern,” Golob said. “We just want to make sure that we’re not conflating government responsibility or government censorship with private accountability.”

SendaRoni says he’s been livestreaming for a few years and has “tens of thousands” of followers across a number of social media platforms.

“I usually talk about social issues. I speak on trending events, news,” he said adding that a number of livestreamers addressed Eatherly’s antics following the shooting in Clarksville.

“I think he tried to find people he’d get a reaction out of,” SendaRoni said. “When you do things such as that the end results are not going to be exciting. You’re acting like no one has a reason not to be disgusted and you made a mockery of yourself.”

Leading livestream platforms such as YouTube and Twitch do have an infrastructure for content moderation — and community guidelines barring hate speech and slurs. They utilize automated detection and user reports.

Both Golob and Ruane advise people to know their rights on how to handle livestreamers who are making them uncomfortable. Ruane says it’s OK “to film them right back.”

“Make sure that you’re sharing a different version of the story because whatever First Amendment rights they might be exercising, you have them too,” Ruane said. “Make sure that is being published at the same time and that can serve as a form of pushback in and of itself.”