Fortnite Streamer Returns To Twitch After Alleged Assault [Updated]

Image: Epic

After a temporary ban from Twitch following the alleged assault of his partner during a livestream, Australian Fortnite streamer Luke "MrDeadMoth" Munday returned to the platform this week.

The December 9 incident involved Munday arguing with his pregnant partner over missing out on dinner. The ABC reported that Munday and his partner could be heard off-screen, with items thrown at Munday from across the camera and obscenities shouted before he left his desk and returned multiple times. The alleged assault was not streamed on camera.

Munday was arrested hours after the stream and charged with common assault. He received a four-week court date adjournment to seek further legal advice. He is believed to be entering his plea on January 10, where the court will also deal with a change to one of the conditions on an AVO application against him.

Munday announced his return to Twitch via Twitter on January 31, saying "let's be positive."

Munday's return to Twitch was met with angry responses on social media.

At the time of writing, two identical clips from the stream were saved to the MrDeadMoth Twitch page and are timestamped January 3. In the clips, Munday is talking about the current game of Fortnite he is playing and a child can be heard talking in the background.

It seems that Munday may have received roughly a fourteen day ban from around the time that the alleged incident occured. According to Twitch's account suspension page,

"We suspend accounts that violate our Terms of Service and/or Community Guidelines. Most violations will result in a temporary suspension of one day up to 30 days, and a strike on the account. We may also remove content associated with the violation."

Under section 9 of Twitch's Term's and Services, users may not, "create, upload, transmit, distribute, or store any content that is inaccurate, unlawful, infringing, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, harassing, threatening, abusive, inflammatory, or otherwise objectionable."

It's currently unclear why a standard ban may have been applied to an account that is currently involved in an open case or why it was lifted ahead of the January 10 court date.

Update January 3, 14:20: A Twitch spokesperson has told Kotaku Australia that they don't comment publicly about moderation matters.


If you or someone you know is suffering from domestic violence, you can contact the Domestic Violence Hotline at 1800 656 463 or the 1800Respect national sexual assault, domestic and family violence hotline.


Comments

    Zero surprise, the guy isn't large enough for enough stink to be kicked up about him returning to stream.

      I don't know, he might not be big but the story got international news coverage. A two-week suspension over Christmas when viewership is typically down anyway isn't a good look for Twitch over someone that assaulted his wife on stream.

        I dunno, one of the most popular games in the world gerting coverage during the slowest news period doesn't seem to much of a feat.
        A stoner with a bag full of pot got a lot more coverage.

          Unlike Twitch, which takes a dip over Christmas (TwitchTracker), Q4 and Q1 tend to be the busiest periods for news media (Nielson). The slowest periods are Q2 and Q3 in the middle of the year.

        Allegedly assaulted. And which was not visible on the stream.

        I'm not defending any alleged assault, but I will point out the hypocrisy of Twitch in allowing women to stream sexually suggestive content with minimal action taken in clear violation of the terms of use. Money talks, it seems.

          What are you talking about? Twitch has been cracking down on revealing clothing for years now, there's been a ton of criticism and controversy over it. One streamer was suspended for two weeks recently because she flashed her tits. Think about that - a woman who briefly flashed her tits on stream got the same suspension as a guy who very clearly assaulted his wife on stream.

          And that's the low end of punishment for nudity too, others have been perma-banned for cleavage. Twitch has awful consistency when it comes to applying its punishments.

            Allegedly assaulted, there was no footage of any assault. I didn't mention nudity, I stipulated sexually suggestive...and yes there is controversy, because the allegations are that twitch applies double standards in penalties based on gender.

              I'm not basing my judgement on allegation, I'm basing it on observation. The evidence is beyond reasonable doubt for me, so I'm calling it what I'm firmly confident I observed.

    If your gonna outcast people for domestic abuse, start with the big fish before you pick on the small fry. Chris Brown threatened to kill and beat the shit out his partner...still see his videos on YouTube though...

      Or the what aboutism can die in a fire and everyone should get the blade just the same.

        Yeh great. Expecting the Kotaku article on why CB is still on YouTube any day now.

          Kotaku, the gaming website? The one that reports on gaming news, like this video game streamer, and not on random American musician news, like Chris Brown? That Kotaku?

            Oh please, they report on basically anything these days. Junk Food, Steven Universe, other random, completely non gaming related crap.

              Pretty sure most people would be questioning why its here though. Where as this makes much more sense.

              When was the last time they reported on a musician that wasn't related to gaming or east Asia? Because we're not talking about 'anything', we're talking about why Kotaku isn't reporting on Chris Brown.

                Ninja streaming fortnight with some big name rapper about 2 months ago and not only that if CB was kicked off youtube you can bet your arse that it would be covered by every tech and game website especially kotaku US because they will cover anything with even the most beyond trivial attachment to gaming

                  You kinda described the connection to gaming in your first sentence though - the rapper streamed playing a video game with one of the most popular video game streamers.

                  If Chris Brown was kicked off Youtube, I agree we might see a Kotaku article. But that's not the same thing as expecting that Kotaku would cover why Chris Brown hasn't yet been kicked off Youtube for his abuse.

            The same Kotaku that has a fixation on anime and Japanese culture?

              That's the one. Games, animation and Japan, as Kotaku has always been. American music scene, not so much.

      So, like... why should we be cool with this one because Chris Brown is somehow still famous?

      Do we only have like 9 Scrolls of Banishment for DV? Would we be wasting one on this guy when we should save them for the boss?

      Tu quoque fallacy. By that logic, if I were to have you beaten then I shouldn't be outcast because Kim Jong Un exists so people should just worry about him first, right?

        No it's more direct and comparable and you know it. We shouldn't allow this guy to stream for his 20 fans. But we'll stay silent on this guy's streamed content with about a billion views.

        Something similar about the guys the left 'forgive and forget' like CB and Kobe. Why is it Weinstein and Spacey don't get the same treatment...

          Because people have varying opnions and sometimes those are political so they would rather push their agenda than hit at everyone. This is just once again what aboutism, though its really about why didn't some other outlet have at them to create more public outcry.

          Either way is wrong.

          How is it different? In both cases it's a well-known person (Chris Brown/Kim Jong Un) who is well-known for being abusive, and on the other hand we have a much less well-known person (this streamer/me) who was also abusive. The former pair have been very abusive, the latter pair less so but still abusive. What difference do you think exists?

          This is a fairly textbook tu quoque fallacy. You're trying to appeal to hypocrisy by suggesting that condemning this guy when someone else worse is still out there is somehow wrong.

    Bad move for Twitch... if this guys channel gains increased subs,views or revenue after the fact his domestic abuse was not only recorded on Twitch but is evidence #1 in his case... it sends a wrong message to streamers and viewers that doing bad thing live on strean will get you rewards.

    Did anyone watch the full video, she was throwing stuff at him, he repeatedly asked her to stop attacking him, requesting she left the room, then he resorted to aggression, I'm not saying what he did was right in any way, but he is also the victim of domestic violence. You can't poke a dog over and over with a stick and then complain it bites you, if you watch the full video you will understand what I mean when I say they are both horrid people.
    He could have left the room and called police, all though he probably would have been laughed at, it's worth at least trying first.

    Last edited 03/01/19 4:20 pm

      Yeah... I must've missed the part where it's ever okay to beat the christ out of someone, let alone your wife/girlfriend/partner, because they lobbed a few things in your direction. Being mildly annoying doesn't justify beating someone. You made a valiant attempt to muddy the waters and shift the blame from him to her, but it's for nought. There aren't two sides to this. His response to her was completely unacceptable and disproportionate. She might have been annoying her garbage boyfriend about dinner, be he committed an assault.

    or how about you all wait until he has actually been found guilty in a court of law, before you pass judgement?
    Da fuq is wrong with the world these days, its almost like the Salem witch trials all over again.
    You all know nothing about his relationship, yet happy to condemn a guy based on what you hear in a video and media hysteria.
    let the courts and police do there damn job, if the guys guilty he will get whats coming, and if he isn't his life wont have been destroyed by overzelous white nights on the internet screaming for him to be crucified and condemned.

      People judge things constantly, it's an integral part of our higher intelligence. I don't need to wait for a court to decide the guy smelling of alcohol, staggering around slurring his words after leaving the pub at 2am and then jumping in his car is drunk, I can do that just fine myself right then and there.

      It's not like this is a "he said, she said" thing either, there's video and audio evidence that anyone can assess for themselves. If I see a guy get out of his seat, leave the camera frame, and a second later there's the sound of a slap, a woman crying and then saying "don't hit me in my face", hell yeah I'm going to judge the guy based on that evidence. Because it's extremely unlikely to be anything other than exactly what it looks like.

        As someone that dated a woman who would scream exactly that phrase in public to get her own way when there was no actual abuse, you can fuck right of with your judgements.

          You say that as though her line was the only thing I noted as evidence. It wasn't. Have another read of my post, I listed three things. What you described happened to you and what the video contained aren't the same thing.

          So no, I'll stay right the fuck here with my judgements, thanks.

          So since you're saying she had a behavior of screaming you'd hit her in public, why did you continue to date her for 5 seconds longer than it took for it to happen the first time?

        Your example is a pretty clear cut case. Domestic violence is something that is unfortunately very close to me and it is not always a clear cut case.
        You say part of our higher intelligence is to judge people, judgements on limited facts are not always correct. All we have is a few second snapshot of someones life, where they are the agressor, that isn't up for debate. What do we know of the mitigating circumstances though? Has he always been the agressor? Has she been the agressor and he finally has snapped? Or are they both playing a role? Abuse isn't just pysical, it can take many other forms including emotional and financial abuse.
        The answer is we don't know. I think thats the point @dnr was attempting to get at, you do have to remember with his responses, this is an emotional topic for a lot of people. Rationality can at times take a back seat to emotions, especially as he claims he is a male (guessing) victum of abuse, which as far as the law is concerned is a joke and does not happen.

          Domestic violence is important to me as well, I've been on the receiving end. I'm confident that the video contains enough evidence to support the judgement that I came to about both the people involved. dnr isn't objecting to the judgement I came to (which I haven't even described here, only alluded to), he's objecting to the fact I came to any judgement at all, which is nonsense for the reasons I outlined previously.

        I'm a cop, and I'll tell you that its never so simple, nor as clear cut as you seem to think. Prove she didn't slap him, or that one of them didn't hand slap a bench top or such...

        Despite the current witch hunt against men in the dv arena, actual proof has to be presented, beyond a reasonable doubt (that's the legal standard required). We can't burn witches without definite proof these days.

          Police evidently think there's enough to go on too, since they pressed charges. One of my best friends is a crown prosecutor, I've asked her about this and her view is that this is almost as clear-cut as DV cases come - the only clearer it could possibly be is if it had been in the camera frame when it happened. The timing, the sequence of events, says that beyond a reasonable doubt, the guy struck his wife. There may or may not be mitigating or aggravating factors, but there's zero doubt in my mind he struck his wife.

            Its standard policy to press charges, it avoids complaints that police don't do enough. The same applies in some states for AVO or IOs. As I said, current climate of witch hunting. That said though, DV reporting is still all over the place, male victim and female aggressor incidents are no doubt higher than is reported...the gay/lesbian community has low reporting figures for various reasons as well.

            Crown solicitors won't be involved though, only police prosecutors. They have no experience in low level street offence stuff, and even less in policing dv.

            Last edited 04/01/19 5:26 pm

              Best I understand (I'll ask her next time I see her), police may press charges but the crown prosecutor is the one who decides whether to pursue or drop them based on whether they believe there's sufficient chance of success.

              I wholeheartedly agree that DV (and sexual assaults) need to be reported more often. Sadly I know people who have been the victims of one or both, and a common theme in why they never reported (aside from "I didn't want to report it because I love them and they'll get better") is the knowledge that the system will put them through prolonged humiliation and torture with not even a good chance their abuser will even be convicted. I don't know what we can do to change that, but it's heartbreaking to watch people I care about desperately wanting justice and to restore a sense of safety in their lives, but knowing it's just so unlikely to actually happen.

            The reality is that it is standard practice to progress charges in all dv cases, it avoids complaints that the police aren't doing enough. The other reality is that crown prosecutors don't deal with low level dv matters, police prosecutors do. While there is very damning circumstantial evidence in this matter, it is only circumstantial. The benefit of the doubt always goes to the defendant, and in this case I'd question whether an actual offence is provable.

            No question though that it's a toxic relationship.

              With the amount of paperwork you have to fill out to justify why you didn't proceed with an offence in FV matters it is usually easier to just put before the Court and NETO it later. That is how ridiculous FV matters have become in the ACT courts.

          I'm an astronaut. And Spartacus. And Brian. So's my wife. Your argument is invalid.

      Equating physical violence/domestic abuse with witch hunts; stay classy.

      I mean I would be more inclined to sit on the fence if the video did not include him being super agressive and audio that seems to clearly suggest him being a piece of shit, but who knows; maybe the sum of the evidence leads to an outcome other than what we expect.

        The whole comment went well over your head i see... the witch hunt analogy is related to the witch hunt part of whats happening not the ALLEGED abuse.

          Witch hunts were famous because they were undertaken without evidence. This case does have evidence. Vaegrand is right, your comparison is faulty.

            My comparison is actually spot on, just like the witch trials your evidence doesn't exist either, your making an assumption of guilt on a short clip without context on a subject you have no clue about, white knighting behind your keyboard trying to take the moral high ground while simultaneously being ok with lynching a bloke.

            IF the guy is legitimately in the wrong and was abusive he will be dealt with by the law, and if the actual evidence shows he did it throw the book at him!
            but he should not be judged by the morons on the internet who only have assumptions and minor evidence who think they understand everything better than the people who actually deal with this stuff for a living.
            And yes its an assumption, you have no proof that he actually hit her, you hear a noise and someone off screen say something that leads you to make an assumption.
            its crazy that you cannot see the hypocrisy in your statements.

              just like the witch trials your evidence doesn't exist either

              There's a video containing all of the things I described to you above. Him getting out of his seat and moving towards her, the sound of a loud slap, her crying, and her saying "don't hit me in the face". That's evidence.

              Beyond reasonable doubt, he struck her. Beyond reasonable doubt, you're making excuses for an abuser.

              Dude, no - I'm usually the first to condemn shitty trial by media behaviour, but he livestreamed himself engaging in domestic violence - something definitely happened. She may have also antagonised him and they may have a history together of similar but two wrongs don't cancel one out.

              What are you getting so worked over for? The judgment of "morons on the internet" is not going to throw that guy into jail as you seem to be implying. Only the law enforcement authorities and systems can do so, and as far as we know, they're doing it. On the other hand, you are getting livid because people dare to stand with a likely victim instead of with a likely abuser. What does that say about you?

                That im more open minded and less judgemental than people who instantly burn the witch without proof.

                  I guess you must be, indeed. When I see somebody invoke Satan and immediately a rain of blood ensues, you can bet I'll be sharpening the pitchfork.

        As I wrote earlier in responce to someone else, that's entirely possible. We do have some pretty damning evidence, but it is only one small snapshot of their entire relationship.
        He is clearly in the wrong in the video, but with out knowing all the circumstances surrounding it, I will sit on the fence until the proper authorities sort it out.

      The video is pretty clear.

        No its not and thats the whole goddamn point

          That's funny, the court seemed to think evidence was pretty damning, but hey, what do the police and legal professionals know, amirite??

            Standard practice for the court in dv matters. It was only a preliminary hearing to progress the matter, no determinations made.

              Yeah, the actual hearing is later this month, I believe.

    There are a lucky few of us who reach 50 or 60 years of age WITHOUT skeletons in our closet. Action, choices and decisions that we may later come to see as shameful at the very least, through to illegal but we were not caught. It is all too easy to make mistakes, some mistakes are easier or harder to live with. Some mistakes are of our own choosing and other are forced upon us. Hopefully the streamer here will recognise his unacceptable behaviour and not repeat this mistake, staying on track when the guilt and shame tugs at the corner of his mind. Many do not. In my twenties I never thought this way but now, well...

    Last edited 03/01/19 7:36 pm

    Good lord, did I just read an essay long thread about Chris brown?

    I don’t think Luke Munday should ever come back to livestream again after he got banned from playing Fortnite and that his YouTube channel was already shut down after he got charged by the New South Wales Police for assault on his 21 year old pregnant wife who asked him to stop playing Fortnite and come to dinner.
    I mean what’s even worse Luke Munday does not even want to say sorry.
    I don’t think Luke Munday should ever livestream again after his livestream caught him assaulting his wife in front of their two daughters.
    Luke Munday is a bloody mongrel he doesn’t deserve to come back to livestream on Twitch until he says sorry to his 21 year old pregnant wife which he assaulted before the New South Wales Police arrived and charged him with assault.
    Domestic Violence against women is totally unacceptable.
    I hope Luke Munday goes to jail and thinks about what he’s done wrong.

      Wait what are you doing in a non-Nintendo article? Bad bot!

        He is evolving.

        I think we should start worrying.

        We are now a few articles short of skynet.

    I don't understand why hes getting 100% of the blame. Like, there as bad as each other. If you go and find the WHOLE video of there fighting, she comes in about 3 times to get him for dinner. On the 3rd time, she decided to stay there and starts calling him names, throws cardboard at him and brats him. This continues after he goes off camera the first and second time. This is on BOTH of them, as ether one of them could have walked out of the room to stop the argument that, for the most part, she keeps going. The problem is, no one shows anything before the slap, and so you don't have ANY context as to WHY it happens, witch is the MOST important thing to find out. Why something happen is FAR FAR more important than people seem to think it is.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTGU8xzZJ0E

    If you watch it, you will see he is reacting to having things thrown at him, not just the cardboard we see on stream. There both as shit as each other on this thing, and to blame him alone for the situation is, by all accounts, a stupid thing to do.

      Women are frail and timid, incapable of inciting any sort of emotional or psyical abuse.
      And you are spot on, there is always a root cause, that doesn't let any one off the hook for what they do, but there are usually circumstances around some one actions, whether they are just or not.

        Wooooowwwwwww there is nuance, but I must have seen a different video where she physically assaulted him and didn't just talk shit and pepper him with highly lethal cardboard.

        Don't come in here acting like Bill Bur without the decency of at least being funny.

          Her throwing things at him is also assault, by law, but the severity is clearly different, and it doesn't excuse his response which was both avoidable and disproportionate. I think what Jagji might be missing is he's getting all the blame for what he did, as he should. That she was in the wrong too doesn't absolve him, he's solely responsible for his decision to get up, move to her and strike her in the face.

        No, it dose not let them off the hook. What it dose mean though is that the way we are talking about domestic violence is wrong. Each case needs to be looked at on an individual level.

        Why did it happen?

        Who started the fight?

        What was the fight over?

        The courts will deal with the outcome, that's there job. Let them do it. But they don't deal with the reason, but if we don't deal with the root problems of domestic violence, then how are we supposed to ever have a chance of solving it? It wont do anything but band-aid the problem, when what we need is open hear surgery on the thing.

      Like, there as bad as each other.

      Throwing things and being annoying to someone is not at all the same as beating someone (common assault was the term the police/court used, I believe), so that's a huge swing and a miss, Jagil. It's not even remotely close.

      Also, it's their. 'There/Their/They're' is another concept that is also not difficult to understand either.

        I have to be honest, I got a good out of that. The grammar Nazi tries to correct someone who did use the incorrect word, but in their correction uses an incorrect one as well. Then to top it off, tries to belittle them about spelling isn't hard. Well obviously it must be.

        Like, there as bad as each other.
        Also, it's their. No, no it isn't.
        Like, they're as bad as each other.

        Though given your user name I would expect it is a topic you haven't come across yet in primary school.

        Last edited 04/01/19 4:34 pm

          Yeah, I did it. I corrected someone's grammar and used "you're" instead of "your". I am a failure as a human being and will hang my head in shame.

            When you have a word like 'There/Their/They're' I stop caring about how its spelt most of the time. Context if FAR FAR more important than how something is being spelt. Always has been. :P

      Ahhh must have missed the part where words and cardboard being thrown at you is an excuse for assaulting anyone, let alone your pregnant wife. You sir, are a part of the problem.

        No you and people like you are the problem, hypocritical, uneducated, opinionated m'lady types.
        Sorry to tell you but defending women online wont get you laid mate.
        I remember why i left this website, its filled with keyboard warriors and brainwashed morons who fight for "equality" as long as it fits there broken narrative of all "victims" are blameless if they cry loudest online!

          M'lady? Lol mate, I am an egalitarian. I believe that there are reasons to hit a woman, but none of them were shown in the video. Feel free to leave again, because honestly it just seems like a whole lot of crying in the wind about shit that if you were anything other than an idiot and had been here for any of the really political arguments over the past four years would know that I definitely don't side with the left side of kotaku or soft cocks like you that believe the world has it out for the white male.

        As I pointed out in my first post, if you watch the video, you can tell shes throwing stuff at him most of the time. Hes reacting to having things thrown at him. The cardboard is the only one that makes it on camera. We have no idea what the other things she had been throwing at him are, just as we did not see what he actually did to her.

        As for the words, I agree with you, if it was on its own. However, it was in conjunction with things being thrown at him.

        As for the cardboard, every augment about the cardboard seems to miss the fact that he was almost hit in the eyes, and holy hell, that could end up on a few different levels, from it just stinging to permanent loss of sight, however unlikely that is, so to just brush it off underhandedly like that is a bit stupid if you ask me.

      He's getting 100% of the blame for the physical abuse. Escalating to that point was his choice alone.

    I’ll wait for this matter to be debated in court by professionals with all of the evidence instead of jump to conclusions online with only part of the evidence.

    I really do hope that they both get the support services they need and more importantly the children’s safety and future are considered.

    @teganjones Just an update on this, seems Twitch has responded to public outcry by re-banning his channel. No idea for how long since they haven't made any statement I can find.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now