After a Tennessee judge set bond at $1 million for Dalton Eatherly, the livestreamer known online as “Chud the Builder” faces attempted murder charges tied to a shooting outside the Montgomery County Courthouse in Clarksville. Judge H. Reid Poland III set the bond during a Thursday hearing that also included courtroom restrictions and removals, as the case became a flashpoint in a broader debate over free speech, online creators, and the safety of people targeted by hateful content.
Eatherly, a white livestreamer, is charged in the May 13 shooting and wounding of Joshua Fox, a Black man, according to the Associated Press report. The incident occurred outside the courthouse in Clarksville, a city of about 165,000 people in western Tennessee near the Kentucky border, and prosecutors also tied the case to Eatherly’s public-facing role as a creator who uses bigoted language to draw attention.
At the bond hearing, Poland barred attendees from using electronic devices and from interfering with the proceedings, the report said. The judge also ordered multiple people from the courtroom, including conservative activist Jake Lang, who was led out in handcuffs, while others were removed under the judge’s directives for maintaining order.
Eatherly’s attorney, Jacob Fendley, declined to comment on the charges when reached two days after the livestreamer’s arrest. Fendley did, however, ask people to stop harassing him and his staff, saying that even though he is defending Eatherly, he finds the livestreamer’s online content objectionable.
The case has also drawn attention online because of the support Eatherly sought for his defense. The Associated Press report said Eatherly raised more than $100,000 for his legal defense in a single day on a fundraising site, and it described the situation as reminiscent of a prior incident in which a white Minnesota woman who used a racist slur toward a child sought First Amendment protection while collecting more than $800,000 through crowdfunding.
According to the criminal complaint, Eatherly and Fox were involved in a verbal altercation before the shooting. The complaint alleges that Eatherly reached for a gun inside his right jacket pocket and that the two men began to fight; Fox was then shot multiple times and later underwent emergency surgery at a hospital, the report said. The Associated Press also reported that Eatherly recorded audio shortly after the shooting and later posted it online, saying he fired in self-defense.
As the legal process begins, Eatherly has framed his online activity as protected expression. The report said Eatherly defended his videos on a crowdsourcing site as “mild jokes, unfiltered thoughts,” and he has at times described using a racial slur as “edgy, harmless humor,” while also writing, “I know it’s controversial, but it’s my right to speak freely.”
Legal experts cited in the reporting said the First Amendment does not necessarily shield conduct described in criminal-law terms. David Raybin, a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor, said that while Eatherly repeatedly references free speech, his actions in the posts may be crimes under Tennessee law, describing how openly carrying a pistol while berating people could amount to assault. Raybin also said that assault can be charged if a person “create[s] fear of imminent harm,” a quote included in the report.
Civil rights advocates argued that online “race-baiting” creates real-world risk for people who may be targeted. Brandon Tucker, senior director of government affairs for Color of Change, said in the report that “race-baiting” content creates immediate risk for Black bystanders and that a power imbalance exists between a livestreamer drawing an audience and those who are being provoked. Tucker also said the same free speech Eatherly claims to advocate for does not recognize the “chilling of my response,” because the result may be that he cannot react reasonably when “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,” in a quoted passage.
Other livestreamers, as described in the report, said Eatherly’s conduct crosses boundaries even within creator communities. James Champion, who goes by the online moniker SendaRoni Sloscru, said “When you get to terrorizing and doing all this hate speech, that’s when the line gets drawn,” emphasizing that platforms allowing it amount to race-baiting. Champion added that people may laugh at the content or respond with violence, pointing to the danger of escalating reactions.
The debate also reached beyond the court case into how platforms handle livestreaming and moderation. Eatherly streamed on Pump.fun, a platform where users create and trade cryptocurrency tokens, and the report said Pump.fun paused the livestream feature in November 2024 after violations of its terms of service, including uploading abusive, obscene or dishonest messages. The report cited Kate Ruane, director of the free expression program at the Center for Democracy and Technology, saying it was “not clear what was done to improve that situation before it was reinstated,” and she questioned whether user reporting would work if viewers did not object.
Ruane and other experts also said people should understand how rights play out in different settings. Brandon Golob, a criminology, law and society professor at the University of California, Irvine, said self-regulation can still feel like a “Wild West” as livestreaming platforms multiply, but he added that the First Amendment is not a “blanket shield” from harassment, hate crimes and provocation. Golob said, “The reality is that when it involves two private individuals, state law is going to govern,” while arguing that the concern is not to confuse government censorship with private accountability.
In the report, SendaRoni Sloscru said he has livestreamed for years and has “tens of thousands” of followers across multiple platforms, and he described how livestreamers sometimes seek reactions by provoking people. He said in the reporting that he thinks Eatherly “tried to find people he’d get a reaction out of,” and that when creators act this way “the end results are not going to be exciting,” while he added that other livestreamers responded to Eatherly’s behavior after the Clarksville shooting.
Eatherly’s case, therefore, sits at the intersection of criminal proceedings and a fast-moving online debate. As the parties and legal system proceed with the charges, the reporting highlights competing views about when speech protections stop and when conduct—whether in person or streamed—becomes subject to criminal law and platform enforcement.