some stuff against said terms

Like mastercard and their ban of all purchases of items that could reflect negatively on their brand. Like porn.

There's 2 different parties under discussion here, the other streamers and the platform.

Regarding the streamers, I agree there might be room for a manslaughter charge. IANAL, much less in French law. Personally though, I don't see how it differs substantially from any other high risk group activity. If you're free-climbing (or maybe some other activity that involves more chance and less skill), and you're doing it voluntarily, knowing the risks, is it really fair to blame the survivors if somebody dies?

Regarding the platform, up until the point where a death actually occurred, what could they have reasonably done that would not have constituted some form of censorship? At that point, aren't we back to the censorship discussion of how much power platforms should have over the content we have access to?

I can kind of see what you are trying to say, but I don’t really agree with your conclusion.

I’d make the distinction that free climbing, while dangerous, is a recreational activity. I can reasonably conceive of people watching that for entertainment. There also isn’t anything morally questionable about it.

On the face of it, I don’t think you could reasonably argue that torture is a pastime.

All of that aside, torture is against international law. It is illegal in all circumstances.

From the United Nation Convention Against Torture:

“No exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked as a justification for torture.”

For that reason, I would say the platform did have an obligation to de-platform it.

Arguably, the police should probably have put a stop to it as well.

What? I think you've misread something.

The argument against them, as I understand it, is that they should not have allowed the streaming to happen. As this was pre-death, that would have required them to make a decision about what content they allowed that most people would consider censorship.

Yes, that is the law. You are required not to broadcast death and to create circumstances in which the likelihood of this is minimised.

That's not calling for censorship because it doesn't preclude a level of consensual harm that doesn't lead to high risk of death.

As I said earlier, your point stands: it is not for these platforms to act as moral compasses for viewers of consensual but provocative content.

However, that's irrelevant to the law which wants to avoid incentivising people dying / being killed on broadcast streams for a profit.

I think this is ratified by the fact that there will be less of a burden of blame on the service provider if this proves not to be the case

In those cases broadcasters take one of two roads:

1. Don't broadcast it - many extreme sports are simply not broadcast by many, many broadcasters.
2. Properly mitigate the risk to an acceptable level - this is done frequently for sports and other media. This is the reason you can watch Jackass and Dirty Sanchez even though the risk of death for many stunts is non-zero.

Once the death occurs though, they can only rely on their demonstration of #2 here to offset legal culpability. They are also then generally bound to remove the material and not re-air (in this case, Kick did make the content available again for whatever reason)

It seems like this is the road the defense will take in this particular case is to prove the death (illegal to air if preventable) was not caused by the preceding consensual torture (legal to air, seemingly).