I am puzzled by his response. So his initial apology on Twitch is claimed to have been a ruse and is now deleted. The two words "minor" and "inappropriate" were used on purpose. Eh? It is strange, you don't post that, edit it, and say that it was a lure all the time.
As I previously pointed out, he was never criminally charged and neither added to any registry. Considering the state in which it took place, sexting is a crime. In his explanation, he never pointed to Twitch directly, but to individuals within Twitch. Perhaps Twitch don't want the trouble, neither does he. For me, nothing is explained. He has chosen now not to elaborate any more than he already did. What he did state, is that the "minor" was not a minor???
Anyhow, there is no transcript, but IGN (who would not be on Beahm's side) quoted him:
In his first stream since accusations emerged in June that he had been banned from Twitch for sending explicit messages to a minor, Guy Beahm, aka Dr Disrespect, heatedly claimed that the messages were not sexually explicit and that he "shouldn't even be banned from Twitch."
www.ign.com
Apparently responding to the Rolling Stone article, Beahm said, "They reported on all of this based on leaks from two former Twitch employees, one of whom was supposedly on the trust and safety team. If these anonymous sources worked on the trust and safety team at the time of my Twitch suspension in 2020, then you would hope they would tell the truth, but apparently that's just too much to ask. If these former trust and safety team members — and by the way, I know exactly who they are — actually had firsthand knowledge, then what they conveniently left out is one, Twitch's trust and safety team, the same employees that decided to ban me, internally admitted that the Whisper messages were not sexting. And two, Twitch's trust and safety team, the same employees that decided to ban me, internally acknowledged that the Whispers did not constitute child sexual abuse material."
He went on, "I'll say it again: neither I nor the Twitch user exchanged any sexually graphic messages or images. Cody Conners and these other anonymous sources are trying to paint a picture that I was exchanging sexually explicit messages with this Twitch user. That never happened. I even used the word 'inappropriate,' purposely, and look at how it was defined by everyone, champs, huh? Including these defaming articles....We're talking about allegations that Twitch made against me as a half-baked reason for justifying their actions of suspending and shutting down my channel. Allegations that Twitch made without even a legal analysis of whether the whisper messages were illegal."
He doesn't seem intent on pursuing Cody Conners. It doesn't seem to me that Beahm, and his legal team, consider this to be slanderous. It brings me back to Twitch, is it Twitch which does not want to be exposed? I mean, Whispers is in their domain. In the instance where Beahm did not breach the threshold to be considered predatory, others could have.
I think Beahm and Twitch are both staying their respective lanes, as settled.
Where I will leave it, only where Beahm is criminally pursued and or registered I will consider him dangerous. Do I support him, no.
In the end, nothing new is learned. That is until Twitch responds, or the above-mentioned happens. It is uncertain whether more allegations will be made. At this point, those who make the allegations need to support their allegations. All claims made have been unreliable. As I previously speculated, the authorities possibly already invited themselves over to Twitch, to take a broad review.
Sign up with Google