449
Kick faces possible $49 M fine after French streamer Jean Pormanove dies on air (www.dexerto.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
170 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

They aren't deciding, they're being held to laws that they didn't create nor necessarily agree with.

I'd assume that, given the option, they'd like this kind of thing to be legal so they can continue making money from it legitimately

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    What? I think you've misread something.

    The argument against them, as I understand it, is that they should not have allowed the streaming to happen. As this was pre-death, that would have required them to make a decision about what content they allowed that most people would consider censorship.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Yes, that is the law. You are required not to broadcast death and to create circumstances in which the likelihood of this is minimised.

    That's not calling for censorship because it doesn't preclude a level of consensual harm that doesn't lead to high risk of death.

    As I said earlier, your point stands: it is not for these platforms to act as moral compasses for viewers of consensual but provocative content.

    However, that's irrelevant to the law which wants to avoid incentivising people dying / being killed on broadcast streams for a profit.

    I think this is ratified by the fact that there will be less of a burden of blame on the service provider if this proves not to be the case

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I follow what you're saying. In that case, what about extreme sports that carry a statistically significant chance of fatalities? Granted that they're usually not televised, but that's probably because they're usually done out of passion. From a legal perspective, there's not much to differentiate them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    In those cases broadcasters take one of two roads:

    1. Don't broadcast it - many extreme sports are simply not broadcast by many, many broadcasters.

    2. Properly mitigate the risk to an acceptable level - this is done frequently for sports and other media. This is the reason you can watch Jackass and Dirty Sanchez even though the risk of death for many stunts is non-zero.

    Once the death occurs though, they can only rely on their demonstration of #2 here to offset legal culpability. They are also then generally bound to remove the material and not re-air (in this case, Kick did make the content available again for whatever reason)

    It seems like this is the road the defense will take in this particular case is to prove the death (illegal to air if preventable) was not caused by the preceding consensual torture (legal to air, seemingly).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Thanks, that's the sort of info I was hoping to get, and food for thought. I do wonder how Jackass-genre shows would work with streaming platforms where it's obviously impractical to vet all of them. Do they just become illegal, then? Probably something that will get hammered out at some point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent