Asmongold TV - Lawyer reacts to Hasan's crashout | Asmongold TV

Episode Date: July 5, 2025

Lawyer reacts to Hasan's crashout Asmongold show for all of his stream highlights, competitions, reactions & more. ----- Keywords: streaming moments, gaming news, gaming hot takes, pc gaming Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hassan's mad at legal mindset because legal mindset, I guess, made a video about Hassan. Dude, there's something so funny about people being like, dog, have you seen the legal mindset video about you? Dude, if I were to cover every rumble lawyer, fake lawyer that actually is like a fucking right wing freak that spends most of their time talking about like trans people, I would lose my mind. I would have no time to cover anything else. I get it. A lot of you are drama perverts, okay? And you nut. Is he back to, is he back to the I'm above drama thing again?

Is he doing this again? He is. Oh, Jesus. Okay. Right. When you think about the prospect of drama, but I'm not going to pay any mind or any attention to some fucking psychotic maga lawyer, not a real lawyer, but a person.

passport bro who offers fucking courses he didn't say was a lawyer he said he was he did he say he was on becoming a passport bro who primarily fucking streams on rumble why i don't see how hasan can criticize someone from being a passport bro whenever you went to brothels overseas i think that's a bit of a double standard that's just me but to me that seems like a double standard why do you guys come in here and ask for this stuff it's never going to happen okay is never happening is this it

we're talking about lebubis 24 carrot gold labubis dude you got to watch the sigma

grindsett lawyer's fucking video on you okay I'm good man thanks carrot gold I don't know what to say

I don't know what to say so he wasn't he wasn't happy about the video okay Well, let's go ahead and watch it. We'll see if there's a reason to be unhappy about it, okay? I haven't seen this. Apparently, it came out earlier today, and we will take a look at it. So this is legal mindset. He recently hit apparently 300,000 subscribers, and he released a video, and it's called Twitch has a Sahn problem. Okay, let's take a look at it. Let's watch it. Here we go. And also, by the way, of course Hassan isn't going to watch a video of people calling into action the fact that he pulled out what could have been considered as a firearm. Whether you think that it's a real gun or not, apparently people said it was an airsoft gun. Go rob a store, go rob a bank with an airsoft gun.

You're going to get charged as if it was a real gun. I don't think it really matters. But, you know, of course he's not going to watch that. Twitch has a brand new Hassan problem, and this one could have... So he's not introducing himself as a lawyer, right? He's just talking about legality? Because I was just curious, like, if that was what was going to happen. Huge repercussions, both legal and non-legal.

We're going to get into that today. Of course, on the legal mindset, we teach you to be a real judge. I'm Andrew Esquire, American attorney, and I'm bringing you this fast, fast-fax, premier, a quick and dirty version. While I once again on a... Is he an attorney or not? I don't even know. Short vacation in lovely Pouquet, Thailand. So another hotel room, another place, but still bringing me the freshest news.

So make sure you like this video. He is okay. The fast facts version. Why would they say it's fake? Esquire means attorney? Oh, I thought it was like a French word, like, like Esquier from like Expedition 33. I just thought it was like a made up word. That's crazy.

Okay. So let's get right into it. Twitch has always taken a preferential. stance when it comes to enforcing its guidelines or at least it when looking at its terms of service has not always applied those equally to all groups and people and one of the people that gets the most criticism everybody knows this everybody knows that it's a fact this and that many folks across the board have said is the really recipient of a lot of the benefit of the terms of service without the burden of punishment has been one hasan piker now i actually

think that Hassan is the most noteworthy case because he's really popular. But the fact is that other people do worse stuff than Hassan all the time and they never get in trouble either. I think that really everybody thinks about Hassan because, again, that's what gets the most attention. But the fact is that like Mike from PA goes way harder than Hassan does. Really? Like, I mean, there's no universe where like, I mean, Hassan does. Like, I mean, Hassan does things that are unhinged, but even Hassan, I think, tries to at least pretend to not be crazy. Now, today, there was an absolutely extreme incident, which really points out the problem for Twitch in having this unequal enforcement involving Hassan and how this can have legal consequences.

And this is involving him swinging around what appears to be, and that's the very key here legally and overall, what appears to be a weapon. So let's take a look at the video. And of course, this is video that I found over on X, which highlights Twitter incident. So we'll take this clip here and give some commentary as we go. It's time to crusade Iran and Gaza. Mamdani communist.

Let's go to war against the left. So to give you some background here, it appears there's a chatter in his chat who is made a bunch of comments. Obviously, these are comments that are not fitting. with the five in the crowd of... I mean, to be fair, this chatter should be permitted. Like, they should have their account deleted.

Like, calling for war and the hang streamers. Like, they should have their account deleted. I mean, even if you don't like Hassan or you don't like Zoran Mandami, like you can't have people saying that shit, right? Sons chat, obviously for any of this, he would have the ability to block and or ban. this person. Of course, every single content creator retains the right to ban people out of their chat for whatever reason. Some people are more permissive. Some people are more restrictive. That's really up to the

creators on their platform. If they choose to ban people for anything, that's up to them. We wouldn't be here today if this was just a block and ban incident, which once again, I think there was plenty of grounds. By the way, about Mandami's application to Colombia, he's actually from Uganda. So his application was accurate. So him being African American, like African American is a specific identity of black people that exist in America. Africans are not African America. African American.

They are African. It is a specific identity of a group of people inside of the United States. He put that on his application in order to use it to get an advantage. he's not a stupid guy. This is a very intelligent, very well-manicured, well-presenting, intelligent person. He put that so it would increase his chances of getting accepted. Everybody knows it.

Why are we playing games? For him as a creator saying, hey, I don't want this person here. He knew. And some of this language was even pretty extreme, saying hang Hassan for trees. Yeah, that's pretty extreme. And you know what? Blocking and banning someone for that would be called for.

If someone came into my chat or anybody else's chat and said that about that creator, yeah, they would probably catch a ban. They would probably catch a block and a ban and possibly a report, a broader report. But the response that Hassan gives here is not proportional nor appropriate to these comments. Let's play this. In our sense, in our sense. sincerity and actually delivering for the very working So let's be clear.

He's gone and retrieved what appears to be a pistol. Now, many people have pointed out it could be airsoft. Even the dog is on alert. The dog is like, oh, fuck. Uh, uh, oh. After it is airsoft or whatever else. The key here is that it appears to be a real weapon. I'll also notice someone who played airsoft for like eight, nine years as a kid.

I had MP5s. I had pistols, I had a sniper rifle, even an Airsoft sniper rifle. You're supposed to have an orange tip or a marker on the end of an Airsoft. That would be not a typical airsoft. We took ours off immediately. That marker or remove that orange tip, even though, of course, some people do do do that. Some people make it more realistic. Instantaneously, we did that.

But the key here, and this is a key that is not just in an analyzing this for Twitch terms of service, but also broader for the law, is that you can make a physical threat. You can make a threat or try to intimidate somebody. with even a fake weapon, with a fake knife, with a fake gun, with a fake bomb. If you were going to try to hijack a plane and you attempted that with a fake gun, it would not be material in terms of your defense. You would not be able to say, oh, but, well, it was fake, so I couldn't do it all along when you get caught and arrested and thrown in jail.

You don't get off because, oh, it was fake. No, you would lead a reasonable person to believe that was. You don't need to be a lawyer to know this. Like, even I know this. How many of you guys already knew this? Real and a reasonable person could have fear of that knife, gun, bomb, whatever, despite the fact that it's not objectively real. So that's a defense a lot of people brought up, and I don't think that stands up. Let's continue.

Yeah. Compared with what President Trump has been able to do, you know, over the same period of time that I've been running has been telling and tell him. Oh. Oh. It's going to look like again. Okay. fair enough. Once again, brandishing the weapon, flaring it around. Obviously, there's a point to this. Obviously, there's an individual who's directed at. You know, this is something that's not really

ambiguous in the general intention. As you may have been talking about it. It's pretty obvious who's trying to threaten the guy. That's obviously what's going on. Everybody can see that. It's not even a question. I mean, and also, I think it's, again, a very, very big mistake because like if you show a gun, that's going to hurt like if you shoot somebody breaking into your house and they have clips of you showing a gun and that you're going to shoot people, they could use that

as evidence that you premeditated it and you wanted to shoot them, which could make your appeal for self-defense weaker. So I think it was a mistake. It's a mistake to do that. Oh, you found his account. Did they? I'll show you

Three ways you can use your... So here's another crazy thing about the doxing. So now you've paired, so you've linked up brandishing a weapon what appears to be a real weapon, whether or not it is, whether it's an airsoft or whatever it's fake. Yeah. You've paired up brandishing a weapon with doxing, which is revealing their private information,

which, by the way, in certain jurisdictions and certain places in the world, California, I think is one of them. Is illegal. Yeah. So you've done two things. which are potentially illegal. There's the brandishing, the threats, the intimidation, and then you've got the doxing, right? So you've got two separate things you're now doing together. So that this is combining to make it even worse.

Not good at all. This is the guy? First thing we want to do is download the YouTube. It's not the guy. It's not even the guy. ...p. which we can do through the first link in the description. What are you going to do, bro? And of course I do like to pop up there just explaining that this is clearly against their TOS.

This is something that is not, you know, holistically both the doxing and the threatening is, of course, against the Twitch terms of service, right? Yeah. Write a petition? Let's do a crusade, he says. Let's do a fucking crusade, he says. Let's hand Hassan and Mamdani for treason, he says. The fuck are you going to do? Go on a fishing expedition. try to fucking put malware in my phone

Is that what you're going to do? You don't have to have big muscles in order to pull the trigger of a gun. It's not like you have to work out in order to shoot a gun. That's the whole point of a gun. Like, I don't even, like, what, they're going to beat each other up with a gun?

I don't know. You're misinterpreting it. It's not a threat. He's just fucking stupid. I think that if you pull, out a gun like this in front of a police officer, you would be spending the night in jail or in the morgue. I think this is absolutely a threat. I think if somebody went to your house and they did this in front of your house, you'd be calling the police. That's the truth. And everybody knows it. You skinny bitch. And to be clear, nothing that Hassan said would be necessary.

impermissible. He could say all those things. He could call them, I believe his technical word was a skinny bitch all he wants. That would have been perfectly fine. He could, you know, actually not perfectly fine, because if tectone can get banned for calling Frogan a fat bitch, then why is Sasan not getting banned for calling someone else a skinny bitch? What is this fat privilege? That doesn't seem fair. Let this guy the whole night scream at this guy the whole night. The problem was the weapon combined with the doxing, right? All the other stuff he could do. That's his show. He can run it how he wants that wouldn't necessarily be against TOS to just yell at the guy the whole night and make fun of

the guy. That's fine. Do it your way. Not what we do on my channel, but hey, he can do it on his channel all he wants. But with that, you open yourself up to a bunch of problems and Twitch is opened up to a bunch of problems because now they've got to decide what they're going to do with Hassan. And in the past, they've only given him slaps on the wrist. That is they've given him one day or 24-hour bans or sometimes 12-hour bans. And that's been all they've done with him. But now we've got a serious problem because we've got a situation in which if he is not banned for this, this opens up this behavior for others. So it opens up this behavior, these threats for other people, which can bring on what appears.

I think also it another, I don't know if he's going to talk about this or not. I mean, my understanding is like if, I mean, Twitch obviously knows this happened, right? And if Twitch knowingly ignored this and something bad happens in the future at Twitch, they could use this as evidence that there's a pattern of behavior that Twitch does not call or, you know, action problematic actors. You see what I'm saying? and like that can be used as like a precedent of uh irresponsibility negligence or something like that they have to do something you're wrong on that well okay so i i can i can draw a parallel okay and this is the only thing i can do as a good argument and again like maybe he could you know elaborate on this more than i could but like for example uh for any sort of you know child sexual abuse material or copyright material. The problem is not that the content is on the platform. The problem only exists with liability towards the company if the company knows the content is on the platform and they permit

it to be on the platform. So they're not proactively accountable, but if there's evidence that they knew about it and they let it happen, then they are accountable. And that's part of Section 230 that removes liability. It's called precedence. Yes, and so that's where I'm drawing this connection from. And it also creates a history of behavior. I mean, it's pretty simple, right? I mean, if somebody has a history of behavior, then you can assume that it wasn't just an accident, right?

Clearly. To be real weapons, knives, bombs, and docks people threaten them. And here's the problem for Twitch. They open themselves up for not just losing, advertising, which is a big non-legal issue, not just looking bad as a brand, because obviously nobody wants to be the platform in which people are openly brandishing weapons and threatening others and doxing them. That's not good for a platform.

But you open yourself up to illegal consequences as well. Now obviously, many people know the breach of contract route. And there are arguments in terms of breaching the contract between the creator and the platform, in terms of banning somebody for one type of behavior whereas you don't ban somebody for another so you don't ban Hassan for this but let's say another creator is banned for this well there might be a cause of action open up there now there's a lot of challenges with that that's a difficult one but one that's even more interesting and one that is really

untested and in fact there may be many people looking to test this is a consumer type action under a private right of action every state has their consumer laws and those laws are sometimes very very very strong and one thing they protect against is unfair and deceptive practices and it indeed is a very strong case to say it is an unfair and deceptive practice to benefit some people while punishing others because these this bias this for example hasan bias is not disclosed anywhere it's not given out in the terms of service when you read the terms of service nowhere does it say I don't think that they can really have that bias happen and be held accountable for it

unless it can be proven that it's done off of grounds that were protected groups. And this is, again, I'm not sure about this, but that's my understanding, is that, like, you can ban people for whatever reason you want, but there are certain groups of people that you can't ban categorically for discrimination reasons. So, like, for example, you can't ban black people. from doing something, but you can ban other groups of people like all Republicans, for example, because some things are protected groups and other things are not protected groups. So I think that's my understanding, but I could be wrong.

Everyone will be punished except for Hassan Piker. Everyone will be banned except for Hassan Piker. Or, for example, if you want to be more broad, everyone will be banned except people who share Hassan Piker's political beliefs or affiliations or, uh, associations. If that was disclosed publicly, then fair dues, then you can do what you're trying to do. Of course, advertisers may have an issue with that, but legally it wouldn't be as deceptive. But now you're deceiving the consumer, both the people that are consuming the content that are expecting that their favorite content creators will not be banned and then seeing them get

banned and deceiving the creators themselves by lulling them into a belief that they can stream on your platform safely and do what they want, just like a... I think the big problem is that a lot of companies want to have the privileges of Section 230 that allows them immunity from accountability from their behavior. So they want the privileges of a platform, but the power of a publisher. And I think that the more companies start applying these terms of service like rules arbitrarily, and they're not applying them in an even way. I think that really this is a privilege that the government gives these websites and these websites and these companies and in turn I think these companies should be acting in good faith and if these companies are not acting in good faith and they're not doing the thing that the privilege is designed to allow them

to do or not do in this case which is preemptively censor and audit all content and that's again because they're not a publisher they're not publishing it themselves they're just a platform for other people to publish on it if you are applying this much editorial control to a web website, at what point do you effectively become a publisher? Right? Is the second that happens, right-leaning websites or media gets censored out of existence due to liability of removing a restricting section 230? Well, I don't have a problem with that at all with companies that are actively applying

it one-dimensionally. But then they're ultimately punished. And they're punished for a much longer period of time. They're losing a much larger slice of revenue, memberships, a subscription. et cetera, affiliate deals than Hassan. So you're able to point to that and say, I have damages. Because I am being banned for 7x, 10x, 30x, way longer than Hassan. And I can bring this private cause of action for an unfair and deceptive practice on the part of Twitch.

And there's a lot of folks that may be opened up for that. So looking at this real... I think that especially with how, like, and this was the really bad one was the Arab to Jew tier list, that they did, that's the one that I think is really going to get them in a bad situation, is that if they're banning and applying rules to people based off of perceived ethnic differences, if that can be proven in court, Twitch is actually fucked. The Sabre tier list? Yeah, it is. It should be a permit. That was crazy. It was. And also, like, another thing, too, is that I don't think that the tier list is a problem. Like, but,

and this is kind of like, this is what, the issue is, is that it's the systematic allowance of one type of racism while other types of racism are being banned. And I think that's really where the problem is more than anything. Because like on YouTube, for example, or on kick or rumble, you can say a lot of different crazy stuff. But Twitch has a much more narrow terms of service and a lot more things that would be against the rules on other platforms or would not be against rules or against the rules on Twitch. So really the problem isn't that it's happening. The problem is that it's happening and it's being regulated in a one-dimensional way. Israeli accounts are banned for opening accounts by IP. Yeah.

Like there's a lot of evidence, I think, and not, yeah, there's a lot of evidence that points towards the direction that Twitch has had a bias that is detrimental to Jewish people. I would say so. I think criticism and a negative treatment towards Jewish people has been allowed to exist much more than the opposite. I think also you have creators that, you know, with that tier list that got a 30-day ban and that was it. And I don't know. I mean, like, it's very hard to prove something like that in court. That's a very big accusation. But I think that they would have a number of points of reference and especially with, you know, like the logic of like Twitch, for example,

if Twitch said, well, we banned the IP addresses after October 7th from Israel and Palestine because of the war, that would be immediately deleted when you look at the fact that Ukraine wasn't banned. It would just be instantaneously gone. So like that argument doesn't exist. And I think that again, like, yeah, the logic's off. Yeah, of course, it's totally, it's totally off. And same with Russia, exactly. A big problem. And it would be even a bigger problem if there was a,

a real incident where somebody got into an altercation where there was a threat made like Hassan and then somebody responded with force. We saw the case of Sin City Manny in Las Vegas, the streamer that responded to taunting and threats of other streamers. People are not beyond responding with violence, particularly in America. Especially not now. That is something in 2025. That's something that could happen. And God forbid that, you know, do happen would be the absolute end of Twitch as a platform. What do I see them doing? They've got to do something against Hassan.

Hopefully they give him a longer term ban more than just 24 hours. But unfortunately, Twitch has been known to be very light on its favorite golden boy. But let me know in the comments below what you think about the whole situation. And what do you think they're going to do with Hassan if they're going to do anything? And I'll catch you on the next. Yeah. I mean, I would say it puts Twitch in a very compromising position to allow that to happen. I think it really, really does.

It puts them in a very, very bad position. And I think also, like, there's just been the issue is that there have been so many instances here. Give it a like. I haven't watched a legal mindset video all the way in general, right? But yeah, there it is. And I don't believe that you have turned off Israel and Ukraine because they learned they made a mistake with Ukraine. I don't believe it, but it's possible. Well, no, because then they didn't turn off.

Did they turn it off with India and Pakistan? No, they didn't. So if they only applied this rule one dimensionally for Israeli accounts, and also you've got to keep in mind that what do you think the probability is that there have been anti-Semitic communications in channels that could be subpoenaed and found through discovery on Twitch's actual like service, especially with individual people that are communicating between each other? I think there's a very high probability that that would happen.

a very good chance, yes. And so I think that again, if this goes to court, and I'm guessing, right, I'm not sure about this, but like I think that there's a very high probability.