It hasn't been a particularly good few weeks for the U.S. Army's esports team. The Army recently launched its own Twitch channel for live streaming of games, but was sorely disappointed when viewers ignored the gameplay and instead began asking questions about war crimes committed by the Army.

The channel's moderators aggressively deleted the questions that came in, and viewers who persisted were banned from the channel. However, as reported by the Washington Post, such a ban could open the door to further problems for the Army, as it could violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Mark Carney ruled earlier this year that being muted during a game does not violate constitutional rights. He wrote: "The First Amendment and its constitutional guarantee of free speech restrict government actors, not private entities."

"Defendants who are alleged to be non-state actors are not subject to the constitutional guarantee of free speech.

However, because the Army is an agency of the U.S. government, Katie Farrow, a senior staff attorney at Columbia University's Knight First Amendment Institute, said the Army is prohibited from suppressing speech it finds offensive or objectionable.

"The government cannot try to manipulate the public conversation by saying only those who agree with us can respond," Farrow told the site.

"The First Amendment means that the government cannot ostracize or exclude someone based on their viewpoint.

While it may seem far-fetched, this position is not without precedent: in a 2018 lawsuit filed by the same Knight First Amendment Institute, a judge ruled that Donald Trump, the president of the United States, could not block Twitter users for essentially the same reason ruled that he could not.

"Portions of the @realDonaldTrump account, the 'interactive space' in which Twitter users can directly engage with the President's tweet content, are properly analyzed under the Supreme Court's 'public forum' doctrine, and such space is a designated public forum, that the blocking of the plaintiffs based on political speech constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment," wrote Justice Naomi Rice Buchwald, as reported by CNN. The ruling was upheld a year later.

The Army defended its actions, saying the banned users violated Twitch's terms of service against harassment and abuse. The representative also stated that the Army Esports team "does not regulate participants' viewpoints on social media forums," but added that the Army "may regulate the time, place, and manner of discussions on social media sites for recruiting." The Army Esports social media site is a non-political forum for sharing information about joining the Army.

I really don't know how to understand the suggestion that the Army's Twitch channel is "nonpolitical," but it is at least refreshing to see it openly referred to as a recruiting channel. But the Army may be taking a gamble: when the Twitch channel first came to light, the "About" page described it as a place to "share the Army's passion for the game, showcase competition, and connect with viewers."

However, it has since been edited and now says it is dedicated to "members' passion for the game," a distinction that may make it easier (at least legally) to regulate what the Army does on the channel.

The Army's Twitch channel has not gone live since questions about war crimes first started coming in, as the esports team is currently reviewing "internal policies and procedures and all platform-specific policies." The Army also acknowledged the issue of giveaway offers that actually lead to recruiting pages and said it is currently looking at "giveaway options" that would "make it more externally clear.