This article doesn't warrant any of its arguments.

First off, where in the article does a source from Riot state that these casters are being removed? The only citation in this regard is a reddit comment by a rioter that just apologized for the incident. The article even says Riot has not provided a statement.

Second off, with Svenskeren, it was a player for NA and for an NA audience, where the culture is entirely different from Latin America. While the term(s) are socially declared racist in America, it's logically incorrect to just assume an American interpretation term(s) to be upheld in other countries. Just from comments in this thread that premise itself is up for debate.

Thirdly, the author just argues (without explanation) that we don't have to be fluent to know "what's going on here" and ascribes common intent in Western context to the talents: that they were trying to mock Asian players (and that those who stay silent are too somehow at fault). Again, you cannot ascribe that interpretation without fist warranting that the cultural context and reception of the terms by the pertinent audience would be the same as the places where it is declared as "casual racism" (in Western places). Spanish fluency, by the way, isn't even needed to get the cultural context. What about Spanish-Americans who may be fluent but grew up in a culture entirely separate from that of Latin America? Even if that's not the case, the article assumes that people fluent in Spanish somehow would assimilate the offense felt by those who the slur was directed at: people of East-Asia descent. Without warranting the only case where that would be true is if all racism is equal in pain it elicits and thus should be equal in the response made to it. Wouldn't slurs directed toward people fluent in Spanish in Latin America be more offensive than slurs directed toward East Asian people toward people who are fluent in Spanish?

Very, very far off from good journalism.