Slashdot Mirror
CNN Warns It May Expose An Anonymous Critic If He Ever Again Publishes Bad Content (theintercept.com)
New submitter evolutionary writes: CNN appears to be giving veiled threats at a Reddit user who posted critical comments about the media giant. After an apology was given by the Reddit user (possibly under fear upon discovering CNN had his identity), CNN stated: "CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change." The story stems around Trump's July 2nd tweet, which includes a video showing him wrestle and takedown someone with a photoshopped CNN logo on their head. The video was accompanied by the hashtags #FraudNewsCNN and #FNN. CNN reportedly tracked down the Reddit user who claimed credit for the tweet and announced they would not publicize the user's identity since they issued a lengthy public apology, promised not to repeat the behavior, and claimed status as a private citizen. However, as The Intercept reports, "the network explicitly threatened that it could change its mind about withholding the user's real name if this behavior changes in the future: 'CNN is not publishing HanA**holeSolo's name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same. CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.'"
What the fuck?
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
get doxxed by a major news network.
Remember kids, it's different for the media.
Wow did CNN mess up. And that Cuomo guy truly screwed the pooch* You would think that growing up in a political family, with a Governor for a father and a brother that he wouldn't step in it so badly.
:)
What a colossal failure on the part of CNN.
* Yeah. The first time I ever used that expression.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Assange condemns the threat to dox. Priceless.
The guy admitted to them he's a troll, and asked them not to publish his real name because of the potential negative impact his trolling would have on his real life. They said ok, but if you start trolling again we may not be willing to withhold your name.
What's the better option? What they did, or publish and be damned (with probably at least a bunch of harassment for the guy), or withhold the name but not tell him they might publish in future if he keeps it up? I think they chose a reasonable course.
Remember this when an outlet claims to be anti-doxxing (or anti-harassment, or anti-racism, or anti-etc.) . . . they're full of shit unless they're against it happened to BOTH (read: all) sides.
So the gif is re-tweet by Trump.
CNN got someone to find out where it came from.
Journalist tracks down person who created it.
They find out he's a racist piece of shit.
They try to contact him.
He freaks the fuck out and deletes everything and apologies.
He then contacts CNN apologizing and begs them not to name him.
CNN find him genuine and agree, and publish his account of things.
CNN reserve the right to publish his name in case he renegs (e.g. 'haha CNN so dumb I played them')
I see no problem here
Does CNN not realize that there is a Constitutional right to troll without facing any consequences? It's right there in Article XII of the Constitution.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
You are welcome on my lawn.
He slandered them? Mocking == slandering?
Let's see Donna Brazille passing questions to Hillary.
CNN knowing that the Russia story is fake.
And you think that this gif is "slandering?"
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
CNN did its job. It investigated who put up the video, just like they have done in every other situation. When they found the person, they confronted them and gave them time to explain.
The person, not having the convictions of their actions, agreed to withdraw the video and apologize because, and something not stated in this particular article, he didn't want to bring shame to his family.
As always, he claimed the anti-semitic remarks he regularly posted weren't really who he was, nor was he in any way proud of what he had done.
Of course that's not what he said when the video went up:
After Trump tweeted the video on Sunday, "HanA**holeSolo" took to Reddit to say he was "honored," writing "Holy sâ"!! I wake up and have my morning coffee and who retweets my sâ"post but the MAGA EMPORER himself!!! I am honored!!" MAGA is an acronym for the President's campaign slogan: Make America great again."
After posting his apology, "HanA**holeSolo" called CNN's KFile and confirmed his identity. In the interview, "HanA**holeSolo" sounded nervous about his identity being revealed and asked to not be named out of fear for his personal safety and for the public embarrassment it would bring to him and his family.
Interestingly, moderators removed the entire apology from the sub group after it was posted.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Kind of amazing that CNN is actually capable of doing investigations on their own. Here I didn't think they had it in them. After all, they've been hammering the Trump Russian Collusion story for MONTH after MONTH with such slim evidence in the face of mounting evidence that their supposed version of the events didn't/couldn't have actually happened....
So, now that Trump Tweets a link to a video, they are going all investigative reporter on some reedit user who actually made the video to amuse his followers? Then, once they find out who it is, go all out threatening some teenager who DARED to poke fun?
You idiots over there at CNN deserve the bad PR that's coming. Keep it up and you guys are going to be out of business as your watchers abandon you in droves...
From another point of view, CNN was perfectly within its rights to publish the critic's name, as the information is newsworthy, but they protected his/her anonymity. Calling CNN's final disclaimer a "threat" is a matter of perspective (and politics, perhaps)....
Help! Help! I'm being repressed! See the violence inherent in the system!
When I read this article I was surprised at the tone and how they treated the troll. The attitude of the writer was, "Hey everyone! We finally caught a troll! He acts all big and bad online but once we got his name he was all scared and apologetic. Don't be a scared little troll, be good online or we will find you like we found this troll." I think the writer thought he was doing a public service, but in reality he was being a corporate despot. There are people in power who want to get rid of anonymity on the internet, and the fact is, if The Man really wants to know what you do online, The Man will find out. The thing is, this problem with Russian hacking and talk of fake news is giving The Man more reasons to get rid of anonymity online.
Shameless self promotion, I wrote a cyberpunk novel about this sort of thing called Girl in a Fishbowl
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
There is no standard etiquette for dealing with online trolls. Usually they are self-sequestered online. This time, however, he got retweeted by the president and then gloated online about it. CNN did some simple investigating into public information and found out who he was. He man just be a stupid troll, but it's now a issue of public renown. CNN has every right to publish his identity and let him defend his own statements. Posting online doesn't guarantee complete anonymity. CNN didn't hack anyone. CNN didn't force a company to give up his identity. They found him via public information he put online willingly. Hell, he even gave a phone interview and confirmed it was him. He could have said that it wasn't him.
CNN is only witholding his info, because a small sub-section of society would crush this guy if they could. Not to say he shouldn't be held responsible for his own words (and that responsibility changes with the circumstances), but he shouldn't have his life destroyed. CNN is kind of in a no-win situation. Give him complete anonymity (for what reason?) and he then stabs you in the back in public. Tell people that you didn't give him a deal to give the story and your an extortionist.
Not much they can do. For me, they've done enough. They've talked to the guy behind it. He made his amends and now you move on. Knowing his name doesn't really do anything.
Censorship is something that the government practices. This, if it's anything is blackmail.
Yeah. You would think so. It's incredible how out of touch these jacka$$es are to be on air and gloat as they did.
Karma is biting them on the a$$. Couldn't happen to a more deserving group of people.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
so CNN is threatening to dox someone for making critical comments about them?
isn't criticism free speech in America?
what am i missing here?
It's pretty straightforward. Trump tweets the third-party content. CNN sees the content and starts to investigate the source of that content -- just as any news outlet would. They find out that the source of the content was from a Reddit user. They see a ton of other disgusting content that the Reddit user also created. BOOM --
this is a real story... the president is tweeting content from a disgusting internet troll. CNN digs deeper and finds out the identity of the source of that content. The person's identity is very relevant to the story. The reporter contacts the person, tells them that they know who he is and what he did. The troll rightly freaks out, sends a letter of apology, and makes an impassioned plea that he won't do anything like this again if CNN won't publish his name. CNN agrees to conditionally respect that request.
I don't see the issue here, folks. News outlets do this every single day of the week and twice on Sundays. A big part of journalism is digging, finding the story, finding the hidden underbelly... and then deciding what to do with that information. Every news outlet has serious dirt on a lot of people that they don't release. Many times, those people ask the news outlets not reveal their identities. Sometimes the news outlet says yes. Sometimes the news outlet says no.
CNN is not going to release this guy's name -- although they certainly could have as it is pertinent to the story. But the bigger story here is that (yet again), the President does some completely moronic and non-presidential on Twitter.
If the idiotic photograph of the Trump beheading had blurred out Kathy Griffin's face... the news outlets would have (rightly) dug deep to expose who was in the photograph and who took the photograph. I'm sure they would have called her up saying, "We know who you are, we know what you did." I'm sure Kathy Griffin would also made an impassioned plea to that news outlet.
There are consequences in everything you do. If you act like a complete idiot... and it becomes newsworthy... then you'd better watch out. Because a world of hurt is coming down on you.
All he did was put up a video of Trump slamming WWF Vince McMahon and put in CNN for Vince's face is all. Wtf? It's a joke and not in bad taste I think! Now CNN and the globalists do a play that shows an assassination of Trump ala Caesar and Kathy Griffin puts up a video of a bloody Trump head in her hand by comparison. There is a difference here. Everyone knows the WWF is play acting. What happened to Caesar was no joke and neither is Kathy Griffin with the POTUS bloody head cut off!
I totally disagree with the actions taken by CNN.
This is a disgusting example of groups or news agencies moving to the new bar that the Trump administration has set.
I will get down voted but it is true. This is an exact action that Trump, and this administration has done. Post or say something we don't like and we will sue / threaten you until you apologize or go away.
I am really upset by this trend and it is why I stay armed.
love the taste, hate the texture
A question for lawyerly types - would the hashtag #FraudNewsCNN be viewed in a legal sense as accusing CNN of committing fraud in their news coverage? If so, and if the poster cannot prove fraud, I'd think that could leave the poster (and others who use the hashtag?) open to a slander charge.
Somebody want to tell me again that the only people who look for anonymity on the internet are pedophiles and terrorists?
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Bitch about being doxxed
Remember kids, it's only bad if your opponent does it
CNN said that they tried to contact him first then he put up his apology the next day.
The apology came after CNN's KFile identified the man behind "HanA**holeSolo." Using identifying information that "HanA**holeSolo" posted on Reddit, KFile was able to determine key biographical details, to find the man's name using a Facebook search and ultimately corroborate details he had made available on Reddit.
On Monday, KFile attempted to contact the man by email and phone but he did not respond. On Tuesday, "HanA**holeSolo" posted his apology on the subreddit /The_Donald and deleted all of his other posts.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html
Where is CNN saying that "he called them to apologize first?" Even your own link has CNN saying that they attempted to contact him first. You make it seem like CNN is saying the guy called them up out of the blue to apologize but that's not what CNN is saying.
I would be interested in knowing if this qualifies as extortion in a legal manner. On a gut level it most certainly is. But, then again, I'm not an attorney.
Is this one of those things that is classified as untasteful, inelegant, poorly thought through but NOT illegal?
Again, on a personal level I think the guy ought to find out. I'm sure the Federalist Society would be able to help him find an attorney if there is a case.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
When you reward behavior like this, it will continue.
I would suspect CNN will use this tactic going forward to silence critics and other opinions CNN doesn't agree with.
Thus, f*ck CNN and their extorsionist ultimatum bullshit.
I don't do ultimatums. I would make another video just out of spite. Their threats be damned.
So. In that case Shakespeare in the Park, its corporate sponsors and the National Endowment for the Arts is threatening violence against Trump?
That's a federal crime punishable by years in jail. Is that the punishment that you're recommending for those actors, the director, the producer and the sponsors?
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Has anyone ever bothered to count the number of caricature troll videos, gifs, and pictures that troll political leaders such as GWB, Obama, Clinton, and yes Trump? What's _shocking_ is that CNN actually went out of its way to locate the source of the video. What's next? They're going to intimidate anyone who is going to mock them? I think the result is going to be the opposite of what CNN intended. We're going to see more memes and videos making fun of CNN, the biased news network.
And another view is that CNN pursued a mater of public interest (the video) discovered the originator, investigated their history and found out they routinely posted anti-Semitic and racist posts, discovered who that person was and contacted them for comment. Even 1 year ago they would have published his name without a second thought (just like Fox News or any other publication).
The guy then contacted CNN and convinced them to withhold his name, they did so but noted that if he continued to be a story of interest due to his postings that they wouldn't withold his name again. There is nothing untoward about that, would you have felt better if they just named him without a second thought like they and everyone else would have even a year ago?
I'm just happy we made some progress and they didn't name him straight away. Personally I'm torn about this, I believe people who post stuff like that should be outed to their family and friends so that the people they associate with can know what that person really thinks. But at the same time I don't think people should lose jobs over stuff posted on the internet and I don't believe anyone needs to be national news for views like that.
Seriously? I hear this is some 15 year old kid... Don't you get the problem here?
Even if this kid was some POS racist or what ever you want to call them, CNN threat to out them is tantamount to calling for his killing. Oh not literally, but close enough. Do you remember what happened less than a month ago at a baseball practice? CNN had participated in the kind of reporting that pushed the nut job with the gun from St Louis over the edge with the leftist rhetoric they are so fond of using.
Poor kid was likely already putting up with death threats online for them and their family BEFORE CNN went out and found their actual name and location, now CNN threatens to let the crazy nut jobs know where the kid lives?
Does CNN have ANY decency left? Are they this thin skinned that they cannot abide a bit of chiding? Have they let Trump under their skin this badly that they'd put PR and some anonymous kid's safety at risk just to try and "get back" at someone, anybody, because it's obvious Trump isn't taking their outrage seriously? Really?
Then there is the whole issue of journalistic ethics which seem to be lost on CNN. NEVER do you become the story if you can help it and if you do, you make your best attempt to get OUT of the story. Ethically they should have just IGNORED the tweet, stayed above the fray and let it go. It would have served CNN much better had they done just that.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Learn English.
Revealing a perps name is NOT doxxing for fuck's sake. Now if you release his phone number, home address, social security number, etc., then yeah, but revealing his name (which they didn't) doesn't qualify, nor does "reserving the right" to publish his name in the future.
It's funny how when the bully's get bullied back, they suddenly don't like it.
This isn't bullying it is blackmail which in many countries is an actual crime. Had CNN just revealed his name as part of a news story you could classify that as bullying (mess with us and suffer the consequences). Where they crossed the line, and arguably committed a crime, is when they threatened to do this unless he continues to do what they want.
This does fit the definition of blackmail.
"We have some information about you and it would bad for you if we published it, so do as we say or we will publish it"
It's the same as, say, taking a photo of somebody with a girlfriend and then asking him for money for not showing the photo to his wife.
What you state is correct, but the real tragedy here is that people treat things like this - internet trolls, and even real-life trolls like Trump - as real news.
The more attention Trump gets for the unimportant things he does and says, the less is being paid towards the important things he does or does not do. He's treating this country like a reality TV show, he knows how to push people's buttons. Too bad that isn't his job. People today are manipulated with such ease, even an idiot can do it. It says a lot about the mentality of both sides.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Okay let's boil this down. Small guy versus giant news agency. What small guy did was publish some pieces and made the Internet equal of a political cartoon. That's free speech and bully for the small guy. Big news company comes in an begins their "CNN SMASH" all over the place and small guy breaks. I'm pretty sure this has been going on since printing press to some degree, and each era gets its own version of disgusted by it. So digs on CNN for being the bad guy, but at the same time, this guy got called and he just couldn't own up to what he published. Heck at least in days of yore the truly brave who eventually got called on their pieces owned it at the end of the day. Those that actually do political cartoons sign their name on it, so you know who owns it.
And that's my thing about trolls. It's one thing to have an opinion that runs counter to the popular option. You like Trump? Fine, so be it. You're a racist? Cool, glad to know you can at least admit it, even though I think you're scum. You like to pretend to be homophobic because you just like to get the LULZ by bucking the trend? Put a sock in it amateur.
F- CNN for what boils down to blackmail, but F- this "victim" for publishing BS he can't even stand beside. Do I think doxxing is okay? Nope, and CNN doxxing is bull, but even CNN being in the clear wrong about this doesn't make Mr. Reddit BS any more right. Until we get more legal clarification (LOOKING AT YOU CONGRESS AND YOUR INABILITY TO MODERNIZE LAWS) it's basically wild west rules when it comes online blackmailing. It's a gamble, maybe you'll make a point, maybe the point will get lost on you being a bully. CNN made a call and it was clearly the wrong one, but this dude, he gets no clean hands in the matter either.
As far as the other stuff. That's just people trying to make more of this story to fit a narrative that MSM is evil. I think they're mostly BS but I think the same about most of the people in the capital in DC. So while it's cool to think MSM is this soul sucking menace, I think the folks who can actually be soul sucking menaces are ranked a little higher on my list. CNN being anti-Trump is one soul sucking beast and that's just how it is, at least everyone I hope has the intelligence to mostly ignore them. GOP wanting to "reform" healthcare is a different kind of soul sucking beast that's a bit more real than the man in the TV and is less able to be ignored.
You want to do a GIF of the President punching a news network, cool, at least own up to your art. Oops, you got some baggage under your account you're not exactly proud of? Might want to reexamine your motives for putting that baggage there in the first place.
Also, I don't disagree with anything you said (except the CNN knowing that the Russia story is fake, I don't give them that much credit), especially your sig, voted third party myself, and I'm proud to own up to that.
A more practical concern is that it would be difficult to sue CNN while keeping the troll's identity secret.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
No, you dipshit, that's not what fiduciary responsibility entails. The way stockholders get rid of leadership that doesn't maximize profits is voting in new leadership. What executives can get in trouble for is embezzlement, cronyism, or otherwise treating the company as their personal piggybank.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I'd go with, "When CNN gets hit, it hits back 10 times harder."
That should resolve any concerns about their behavior.
So CNN is willing to let their reporters go to jail to protect the anonymity of a source, but if you are critical of CNN they will doxx you. Nice
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
the reaction on here is almost like this forum is full of anonymous cowards who are terrified someone might link the horrible things they say online to their actual person!
I know this isn't the most trustworthy news source, but here it is:
The first part of that statement is fine but that second part is as clear a theat as you'll likely ever see printed by a (once) reputable news agency.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
we are living in the twilight zone.
See "John Doe" use in court. Not very difficult at all.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The reason it would be like extortion is because they are using the threat to silence future actions. Now, I don't whether or not it meets the legal threshold, but it's creepy, for sure.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Bill Clinton is also a sexophone player.
#DeleteFacebook
Internet Troll: I made this really cool meme of Trump beating up CNN, now I am going to post it.
President Trump: This is really funny, I am going to retweet this.
CNN: The President retweeted this, lets find out who did it and interview him.
Internet Troll: OH SHIT! You tracked me down.
CNN: Yeah, we are a news organization, that is what we do.
Internet Troll: Don't publish my name, because my racist internet trolling will ruin my life.
CNN: Okay
How the actual FUCK can this happen in the United States? CNN should be ASHAMED and apologize to HIM!
By CNN's own description of the timeline the apology came AFTER they attempted to contact him several times, including directly by phone.
There was no question that at the time of the apology he knew CNN knew his identity.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Let me quote some basics, but first chastise you for not performing even a cursory glance at the law and opinions expressed by legal experts. One source of thousands possible.
Most states define extortion as the gaining of property or money by almost any kind of force, or threat of
See item 3.
Extortion is a felony in all states. Blackmail is a form of extortion in which the threat is to expose embarrassing and damaging information to family, friends, or the public. Inherent in this common form of extortion is the threat to expose the details of someone's private lives to the public unless money is exchanged.
This matches my assertion exactly.
Another common extortion crime is offering "protection" to a businessman to keep his business safe from burglary or vandalism. For example, Dan goes to Victor's place of business and demands monthly payment from Victor for the business's "protection" from vandalism and after-hours theft. Fearing that he or his business will suffer harm otherwise, Victor agrees to pay Dan.
This exactly matches my assertion as well.
Extortion can take place over the telephone, via mail, text, email or other computer or wireless communication. If any method of interstate commerce is used in the extortion, it can be a federal crime.
They published their threat on-line in numerous places for public display.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Then why is it repeated on CNN's page? http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07...
Technically, it is a play about a Roman Emperor (Cesar) with a re-imagination into modern times/politics. The "Trump" character isn't actually "Trump", but is a thinly veiled facsimile. It is "art", while everyone knows who it is supposed to be, there is plausible deniability. That being said, taking the play the way they did IMHO voids whatever license they had creatively. And imagine the outcry had that been Obama. The hypocritical double standard is illuminating.
You could even say the same thing about Kathy Griffins severed head (Creative License). Again, had this been a Conservative and Obama, I'm sure there would be actual Jail time involved.
The biggest problem is, we have a legal system that is basically sitting there waiting for something bad to happen (like shooting a bunch of Republicans playing softball) and people excusing the huge uptick in uncivilized "Because the republicans did it too". The whole "Two Wrongs makes it right" crap needs to just stop.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You forgot Republicans/Conservatives/Businesses do it, then it is misogyny, racism, hate .... in which case, the government needs to get involved and it is Censorship.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Making a gif of the CNN logo being wrestled is in no way the same thing as threatening violence.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
/me keeps looking...
Harassing creimer? Certainly not!
I supposed that posting dick pics with my name, email address, website URLs and my disembodied head on Russian websites was "free advertising"?
The real cure for your ignorance would be to read.
Extortion Statutes
Virtually all extortion statutes require that a threat must be made to the person or property of the victim. Threats to harm the victim's friends or relatives may also be included. It is not necessary for a threat to involve physical injury. It may be sufficient to threaten to accuse another person of a crime or to expose a secret that would result in public embarrassment or ridicule. The threat does not have to relate to an unlawful act. (last emphasis mine)
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
He's not a 15 year old kid. The user in question, HanA**holeSolo made a post in a thread discussing astronomy where he talked about being a teenager when the Hubble Telescope was launched. That makes at least 40. Also, according to both HanA**holeSolo and CNN, it was he HanA**holeSolo who asked CNN not to report on his identity is exchange for him promising to stop trolling. Here's a rough summary of what happened...
1. Middle-aged man makes various racist and anti-semitic posts and creates a .gif of Trump beating up CNN. .gif in question and decides to tweet it out. .gif and finds a post on Reddit being the only known source of the .gif. .gif came from, so CNN publicizes what their investigation has found along with a report on their interactions with HanA**holeSolo.
2. The president sees the
3. CNN decides to investigate where the President found the
4. CNN sees the rest of HanA**holeSolo's posting history, including something that linked back to his Facebook page.
5. CNN sends HanA**holeSolo a Facebook message asking for his comment on the situation.
6. HanA**holeSolo realizes that his postings weren't as anonymous as he thought, so he posts an apology and deletes his posting history. He then responds to CNN's request for comment and apologizes directly and tells CNN he was just trolling and asks them not to reveal his identity because his friends and family would be embarrassed if all his racist posts came to light. CNN agrees.
7. CNN asks the White House if Trump is surfing Reddit forums for tweet material. The White House denies that's where the
8. CNN states they won't reveal HanA**holeSolo's identity because they believe he really is just a remorseful troll, and not a real racist, however CNN also states that they reserve to right to change their mind if something should change.
Seriously? I hear this is some 15 year old kid... Don't you get the problem here?
RTFA
Follow this (probably ill-conceived) logic:
The easiest thing for CNN to do would have been to ignore it. Now a publicly traded company is threatening minors over a dumb meme. People will lose their jobs. Also, someone will find this kid and ruin is life, just because.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
I find it interesting that CNN felt it necessary to track down this person and extract an apology over speech they deemed offensive to their brand, and played the victim card to cover what amounts to petty retribution. It would seem that they are already at their limit in how much they can negatively affect Trump, therefore they will attempt to use their influence over someone more vulnerable.
CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.
Just in case there was any doubt as to the kind of reputable news organization you actually are, CNN. I appreciate that.
Fuck you and I mean that most sincerely!
https://imgur.com/jCQlgdC
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
So in other words, if someone *wants* to have their identity exposed for attacking CNN, all they have to do is attack CNN a little more. That should work nicely for CNN...
... in the ass with Melania Tramp's strap-on, but CNN is a piece of shit for threatening to dox the guy.
The creator of the gif should sue CNN for lack of humour.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
I don't make racist or anti-Semitic comments when I'm "blowing off steam" or for the "lulz", I don't belittle people to make myself feel better. If you do this you should be perfectly happy with your friends, neighbors and family members finding out you do it. If you are embarrassed or ashamed for doing this shit then you KNOW what you are doing is wrong.
I'm not ashamed or afraid of anything I've posted becoming attached to my real name, are you? If you are you should grow the fuck up and stop being an asshole.
Accusing CNN of fraudulent news is the exact definition of slander, or libel if you prefer. It is directly damaging to the company to be accused of not truthfully doing the job for which they charge.
Definition of slander
make false and damaging statements about (someone).
"they were accused of slandering the head of state"
What did you think it meant?
CNN has no privacy agreement or obligation to keep this person's ID private. Inasmuch as this person has caused a media event thanks to their creative editing, they have made themselves into a newsworthy subject and thus CNN Is well within norms of journalism to reveal who it is.
For that matter, so is any other part of the media. If any of them also have the identity, then there is ground to attempt to interview them as part of a news story.
TL;DR version: this person has no expectation of privacy thanks to a news event they helped create. If you want privacy, don't do shit like this or at least be better at hiding who the fuck you are.
Sig for hire.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I just don't post anything I wouldn't want my spouse or parents to read and know it's me, no matter what name I am posting under.
The best way to defuse this is for the meme-author to step up and say he published it.
CNN only has power here because he is letting them set the terms. At any point he can take that power back and make them look like assholes in the process.
CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.
CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.
Emphasis mine. I take this to mean that CNN is now policing social media and will expose anonymous sources of political speech that they deem offensive. The only reason why this guy is news is because they wanted to put him there, under the laughable pretense that this animation encourages violence against reporters.
The guy has been advocating for violence against minorities. His identity should have been revealed. And CNN didn't do anything special since any idiot could have done the same, all his information is public
If it wasn't obvious that CNN was deep with the status quo, it should be clear to everyone - when agreeing with CNN puts you in a very small minority.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Purely in the interest of fairness, there are archives from Reddit of his account that indicate that he's at least 27 and more likely 30-something, if the comments are to be believed. I don't know where that rumor started, but I prefer when people back that with facts and there are enough damning facts for CNN as is without adding items that cannot be proven to the mix.
In the end, CNN massively over-reacted to a silly picture here and I don't think the age of the person is all that relevant with respect to their threats, only with respect to a few of the statutes that require a minor.
> CNN didn't speak to hanassholesolo until AFTER the apology was made and all posting history was deleted.
CNN's own damned tweets contradict that. Many images abound of this with archive.is links that can be verified.
Fair enough, and you know what? I agree with you 100% on that point.
I am confident that POTUS using something so juvenile speaks volumes about his unfitness for office, and his implied (non-violent) threat to the media cements that as an absolute certainty.
As for the original creator, and the use of that animated gif? Absolutely nothing wrong with it, and the characterisation of "threat of violence", unless it was accompanied by text with a specific actual threat, is both wrong and little more than pathetic histrionics.
Their family tree is a wreath... Living proof why first cousins should not marry.
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
CNN appears to be giving veiled threats at a Reddit user who posted critical comments about the media giant.
Please explain how CNN's threat was 'veiled'? It seems pretty overt in my opinion.
Ken
While it's true that we all have the right to record and expose conversation, we don't have the right to threaten people _not_ to release that information to get what we want.
Perhaps redundant, but for clarity: If I record you saying "those N words drive me crazy!" I can surely release that to the public and expose you and your statement. I can not however threaten to release that information unless you do something I wish.
TV lawyers often interpret blackmail as a for cash or property issue, which it is not. A much more nefarious use of blackmail is to change someone's behavior. Journalist investigating someone, someone investigates journalist and finds dirt, uses that dirt to get the journalist to drop the investigation. Police investigating someone, someone investigates an officer and finds dirt, uses dirt to get the police to drop the case. Politician discusses putting forth a law or regulation that someone dislikes, person digs up dirt, uses dirt to get the politician to drop the law or regulation.
Surely the statutes differ from State to State, but CNN in this case has vocalized and written the case for a prosecutor. They openly admit that revealing the author of the GIF's name would expose them to harm. They then stated that they reserve the right to expose the name if the person does something they feel goes against the apology.
The only part that is circumstantial is whether or not CNN coerced the apology from the person. Given the time line and rhetoric from CNN, a jury may likely side against CNN.
FWIW, I am not a lawyer. I can read, and do study law and opinion, but that does not make me a lawyer. I have heard numerous legal opinions over the last 2 days which at least give the basis for a case.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
SNL makes fun of the President, first lady, his staff, his staff, and all the people that support him. By name, individually. They do so with mocking, satire, and people doctored up with makeup and lights.
Guy makes a GIF based on 20 year old footage, and it's moral outrage from those same people.
F&*king hypocritical don't ya think? Of course not, that doesn't fit the agenda you were fed.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
This happens over and over. Trump does something absolutely reprehensible and indefensible, but one of the accusers did something slightly wrong, and Trump and all his lackeys start obsessing over the minor misdeed so that people stop talking about Trump's problem.
Trump spends months going after Muslims and Mexicans and is greeted with joy by white supremacists. Then Clinton (fairly accurately) calls about half of his supporters deplorable and gets pilloried by the right for stereotyping.
Trump is accused of multiple sexual assaults and rapes, so starts talking about Clinton's husband's misdeeds.
Comey testifies how Trump tried to extract a loyalty pledge from him and asked him to stop investigating Flynn, so Trump and allies start talking about the non-issue of Comey leaking his own private memos to a newspaper.
Now Trump is again caught repeating stuff that originated with racists, and so obligingly everyone is throwing up the smokescreen of the circumstances under which the racist apologized.
It doesn't matter.
Trump, once again, is repeating information that started out with some pretty reprehensible racists. If your buddy starts repeating a bunch of Hitler quotes your response shouldn't be "well he's not repeating the nasty stuff about Jews so I guess it's fine", you should be "WFT? Has he been talking to NAZIs? What's he got into his head that he's smart enough not to repeat to me?!?"
If you're an American then far-right extremists are among your President's biggest influences, this is the thing that should concern you.
I stole this Sig
Why would the guy be so freaked out about others finding out his real identity and the fact that he created the video? I wonder how much of this "update" is fake news... I just don't get it. If you make a video and then talk about it to the extent that it can be linked back to you... why would you then become ashamed of the video? This is his chance to become the next dildo that travels the talk show circuit grating everyone the wrong way. e.g. Milo Vweriuwoeifuwoeifuwoeiuoweiufwoiuwoeufowieufoweoewhatever.
Slander is spoken, libel is written. If you need to speak in general, you should use the word "defamation." Also, you should use a legal dictionary when talking about law.
Here are some actual first amendment lawyers talking about whether calling something "fake news" is defamation. Spoiler alert: their answer is "no."
there is like 40% of the population that seem to be beyond any hope of carrying on a rational conversation
They are the ones waiting patiently for a rational conversation to start, instead of this.
How can you have a rational conversation with someone willing to lie, cheat and steal whenever necessary to advance personal agendas? And here i do not speak of Hilary alone, but of the Democratic party in general - as Sanders well knows...
Why would you back an crazed egotistical warmonger like Hillary? There's the real missing rationality we need to be looking for. What kind of mass delusion led to her even coming close to being nominated, even with obvious DNC rigging factored in? She was literally the only candidate on the planet that could have lost to Trump, yet she was pre-ordained... THAT is insane.
The really funny thing is, the same game continues with you and others in full support. Yet you call people who did not like Hillary irrational... The rest of use, libertarian and conservative and frankly even a lot of liberals look on in astonishment as even now you double down on crazy being your winning horse. All I can say is, enjoy Trump's second term as best you can...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Apparently you didn't read his other posts about shooting reporters, blowing up muslims, and shooting blacks and jews.
I'm a good boy and I don't have any bad thoughts. I don't see why anyone on the internet would want to hide their real name. I use facebook and post all my private info there.
Blacks don't really bring crime and violence into communities they move into. Illegals didn't really take a good chunk of the lower class jobs in America. CNN isn't really run from the top down by Jews, and Jews aren't really tribal and nepotistic.
It's all racism, bigotry, and anti-semitism.
Here are some actual first amendment lawyers talking about whether calling something "fake news" is defamation. Spoiler alert: their answer is "no."
How about whether calling something "fraud" is defamation? Don't ignore that part simply because it's convenient to your argument.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If that's your idea of a gotcha, you should have spent the hour it took to craft that reply actually reading the site which has covered the standards for defamation over and over and over again. Almost like the author was trying to explain how even sites like NPR get the standards wrong in their coverage. You can go read the EFF's article on it to at least get the basics. Also, it's kind of on you to prove your assertion that it is. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, i.e. TimothyHollins or you if you wish to take up that torch. I can't very well shoot down a non-specific assertion that made no attempt whatsoever to connect the facts of the matter to the elements of a claim of defamation, after all.
In short, please come back when you can explain how "fraudulent news" is a specific claim of provable fact in light of Morningstar, Inc. v. Superior Court, 23 Cal.App.4th 676, 691 (1994) and Information Control v. Genesis One Computer Corp., 611 F.2d 781, 784 (9th Cir.1980).
I'll want specifics of exactly which article(s) are "fraudulent", who was defrauded of what, which specific person(s) allegedly perpetrated the fraud, and you'll have to get that information by quoting specific Trump statements in contexts where he made the statement(s) you claim meet all the elements of a defamation claim. CNN is a public figure, so you will also have to prove actual malice here, once you figure out what that is.
Good luck!
Great post on Reddit explaining how you can complain not just to the direct CNN advertisers, but the sources of deeper revenue...
"go for the ad exchange and behavioral revenue"
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'll quote it for you, but if you didn't read it the first time, I don't have high hopes that you'll read it on the second try:
He wants to give the impression that HanAssholeSolo had an epiphany and decided to post an apology on reddit after he saw Trump's tweet, but really, he just got scared after reading an email from CNN that said something like "We found you, asshole. Remember Eich? Remember Scalise? We are about to make sure that everyone knows who you are and where you live."
See that "Preview" button?
Apparently you didn't read where lots were posted - Imgoingtohellforthis is for dark tasteless humor, not for anything anyone takes seriously.
They were not wonderful thoughts no and I don't even consider them funny but all of that pales in the face of a huge corporation targeting him specifically because he made them look goofy in a GIF (that wasn't even what Trump re-tweeted!!).
Even if HanAssholeSolo were literally Hitler instead of a guy with poor taste it wouldn't matter, what CNN did by threatening him was inherently wrong and - I'm going to say it - Evil. A Mustache-Twirling level of evil.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
See "John Doe" use in court. Not very difficult at all.
John Doe is when the accuser is holding back on naming the defendant, not the other way around, and the purpose is not to hide identity but to initiate the process before some kind of deadline occurs (such as a statute of limitation). It's usually because the actual defendant is not yet known (is it the CEO? the CFO? etc), and by the time it gets to court if this is still a John Doe the case is dismissed.
In other words, clearly YANAL.
lucm, indeed.
He's over 30 years old. The "15" was a rumor started early on based on some of the childish posts he'd made.
I use my real name in everything so fuck you. Does the C stand for China now? A man can't photoshop shit no more? Also, this whole thing can be a scam. The guy could be CNN himself to prevent future photoshopping.
If CNN revealed this guy's address to the hordes of leftist terrorists it has radicalized itself, they would be taking out a contract for murder. A later CNN statement admits as much.
I didn't read his posts, but if they are indeed unlawful, CNN should just warn the authorities about this guy, and leave it at that. There's no need for public exposure, especially not in this heated atmosphere where some idiot with a gun may decide to fix the problem for themselves.
Why are anti-semitic remarks bad? Because it makes Jews fearful for their safety or even their lives.
If you fight fire with fire and try to coerce anti-semites into stopping by making them fearful, you're essentially validating their methodology of putting fear into the hearts of Jews.
Remember, the goal here isn't a world without Jews fearful of anti-semites. It's a world where nobody has to be fearful regardless of their race, gender, preferences, or beliefs (political, religious, operating system, etc). Shaming anti-semites (or people who are anti-anything) into compliance doesn't get you to that goal. It just pushes the fear onto a different group (anti-semites), who then sees your choice to make them fearful as moral vindication that it's ok for them to make others (e.g. Jews) fearful. And the problem comes full circle. Only now instead of just one side using fear tactics, both sides are. Congratulations - you've increased the amount of fear in the world, not decreased it.
The reason it's called the moral high ground is because it's easy to fall off it. And that's what CNN did - fell off.
His speech is free and protected, he can say whatever he likes. At present he has no right to anonymity and CNN are reminding him, and all trolls, using this example, that their unattributed free speech can become attributed free speech real fast. Free speech doesn't mean consequence free speech. Speech has power, and should remain free, but use of that power has consequences, you can change minds, policies and even governments with speech, you can inspire, offend or pacify as you wish. Currently, you don't have the right to speak and impact the world, to deliver consequence unto others free of societies judgement, just free of the laws judgement. And that's as it should be, free speech should be a dialogue, not a monologue. terrorists, dictators and supervillains monologue, democracies debate.
A video advocating violence against a news organisation from the head of the executive branch is highly problematic. I just don't see why it would matter who created the video originally. Who cares what memes a random Reddit user creates, and what his identity is? The real problem here is the President, and his identity is already known.
Worse, they stated that exposing him would probably result in violence against him. Then they said they would expose him if he didn't shut up. Thus, "Shut up or we'll hurt you".
It doesn't matter what he said, a news organization threatened violence in order to silence him. That is wrong on so many levels that however big a dick he is it pales in comparison.
CNN should have ignored the information. Someone poked fun at their biased reporting and CNN responded by announcing to the world that they were willing to trample on the rights of a private citizen in an apparent attempt to protect their brand image. If they get any amount of public support or brand image boost from this move I will be shocked.
Not only is what they did legally questionable(looks like extortion to me,) but it isn't even close to good PR. Whoever said heads will roll at CNN over this is right.
It's been a while since a Slashdot comment made me laugh out loud!
Twitter is somewhere between written and spoken in formality, so both slander and libel seem reasonable. These are the wonders you can perform if you actually understand the language and setting.
Also, you should use a legal dictionary when talking about law.
No, I don't need to use a legal dictionary since my post does not bring any legal arguments or intentions. The notion that my post had to be legally provable exists only in your crayon-filled mind.
Last, I don't care in the slightest about whether some "first amendment" lawyers think fake news is provably false or not. You are under some childish assumption that only that which is legally provable can be right.
You have managed to completely miss any and every point by a continent or more. Well done.
Wow, even for a trumpanzee you are bottom of the barrel uneducated. Do you know what the moral of the Caesar play is? That political murder never brings about the change you want to see. The play tells you that you shouldn't murder Trump because that will only make things worse (in this case hasten the demise of Rome).
Kathy Griffin got fired for that sketch, so clearly it wasn't OK. Did you not read the followup on that story?
You picked the two dumbest examples possible, both showing the opposite of what you thought.
Trumpanzees, man...
Yes, they do. And they get shit for it ever so often. They do however have the balls to do it with their names in the credits.
What's your point?
So confused....
So basically, posting satire leads a MSM news outlet who has repeatedly been caught in questionable behaviors to threaten a private citizen?
CNN threatening to reveal the private identity of someone in a situation like this, would be understood to endanger that person. It would direct ire, almost assuredly leading to his harassment, but potentially also putting the man's, and any family member's, well-being in jeopardy.
That could well be argued a criminal offense.
I can't tell if you're trolling or not, but that's not what Citizens United said.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Flagrantly false equivalency. There are no media outlets, including Fox, who threaten to dox SNL writers, comedians, and staff for writing skits. There are no media outlets, including Fox, who threaten to dox writers, comedians, or staff for writing new skits.
The outrage here has nothing to do with the "comedy", it is all about the reaction of CNN staff who by their own admission blackmailed a person because CNN didn't like the comedy.
If this was Fox threatening a person for creating a 20 second meme, my reaction would be the same. I am extremely doubtful that you would say the same thing.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
> Twitter is somewhere between written and spoken in formality, so both slander and libel seem reasonable.
That's totally irrelevant. Unless you say it out loud with your mouth, it's not slander. If you're going to try to be pedantic, at least know what the word means.
> No, I don't need to use a legal dictionary since my post does not bring any legal arguments or intentions.
Slander and defamation are names of legal torts. To say we're not discussing law here is absurd and to miss your point you would need to have one to begin with, rather than an argument from ignorance using words you have failed to understand. The fact that you resort to "crayon-filled" insults shows that you are most likely just trolling, though, so I bid you good day.
That's totally irrelevant. Unless you say it out loud with your mouth, it's not slander. If you're going to try to be pedantic, at least know what the word means.
It's only irrelevant if you do not grasp complicated words like 'context'. As for being pedantic, that could be easily defined as "needing to differentiate between slander and libel even when the meaning is the same". You're shooting yourself in the foot here...
Slander and defamation are names of legal torts. To say we're not discussing law here is absurd and to miss your point you would need to have one to begin with, rather than an argument from ignorance using words you have failed to understand. The fact that you resort to "crayon-filled" insults shows that you are most likely just trolling, though, so I bid you good day.
And where do you think those names came from? They are also words unassociated with legalese, and have been so for longer than the existence of any libel *laws*. Why do you think there is a *laws* at the end there? Because libel itself is also a word outside of legalese.
In short, you are no lawyer, and you do not grasp the basics of the terminology.
On an unrelated tangent, do you spend a lot of time on /pol/?
... you say or do is published around the world. Here is the troll himself calling for the doxxing of someone. https://i.imgur.com/Pt1nrGZ.pn...
It really doesn't matter if the reddit clown got threatened or not in the legal sense at this point. It doesn't matter that this clown had a long history of shitposting on the internet. It doesn't even matter that the poor cockroach nearly got outed by CNN.
What CNN did to this troll *and bragged about it publicly* was incredibly stupid. Lighting a dumpster fire in that particularly dark neighborhood of the internet, to find one rat, tends to piss off all the other rats that live there. The problem for CNN is this: Now all of those angry rats are going to stop rattle-canning random dicks-in-butts on the brickwork and refocus their considerable talent at tormenting people onto a Mainstream Media Organization.
After all the crap flinging CNN has done recently, and the revelations about their extremely cynical view of journalistic ethics... I can't say I have much sympathy for them. They didn't just piss off all the trolls. They pissed off pretty much everyone in alt-media, across the entire political spectrum.
It would not surprise me in the least to learn that Trump had a pretty good idea that something like this would happen when that meme got retweeted on his Twitter.
No, CNN isn't demanding anything. Some guy behaved in an asshole manner, and didn't want to be identified. (Historical note: to the best of my knowledge, this sort of thing has always happened when attacking media.) CNN has a perfect right to identify the author, and the guy stopped being a public asshole. CNN is not asking for any goods or services or money, which would be illegal. CNN has an agreement with the guy, and will assume that it's all off if the guy breaks it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You missed one thing: "Most states define extortion as the gaining of property or money by almost any kind of force, or threat of". You make a good case that CNN would be committing extortion if they were asking for money or property or services or something like that. They aren't.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I've read that the theater company did indeed use Obama before Trump was sworn in. Nobody thought it was a big deal.
Empirically false. I saw comparable images of Obama that were never prosecuted. Killing politicians in effigy is an old tradition.
The difference here is that a certain President has this idea that people should automatically respect him, an idea I consider anti-American. He wants special treatment that other Presidents didn't even ask for.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You don't think the media is incestuous?
...
Talk about an echo chamber
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blog...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
I refuse to work for a manager that can't use Google, keep your fat fucking job.
Flagrantly false equivalency. There are no media outlets, including Fox, who threaten to dox SNL writers, comedians, and staff for writing skits. There are no media outlets, including Fox, who threaten to dox writers, comedians, or staff for writing new skits.
That's because they can't. SNL "dox" themselves every show by putting their real names in the credits. That's pretty much what separates trolling from satire or whatever you want you call the SNL thing. Hell, one might even consider that SNL gets treated with more respect because they do have the balls to stand up for their skits.
The outrage here has nothing to do with the "comedy", it is all about the reaction of CNN staff who by their own admission blackmailed a person because CNN didn't like the comedy.
No, most of the outrage is due to a moron with a vast herd of followers retweeting the thing. Without that, nothing would have come it. CNN wouldn't need to make a point since nobodies accuse them of fraudulent behavior all the time. But since the MOTUS decided to step in, CNN couldn't ignore it.
Second, there was no blackmail. Forcing someone to take responsibility for what they shout is the role of a parent, and is an important lesson for growing up.
Is it blackmail to threaten legal action against someone that commits a crime? Is it blackmail to threaten your child with no dessert if he keeps peeing on the sofa? Given how you see this as blackmail, I'm inclined to distrust your political neutrality.
If this was Fox threatening a person for creating a 20 second meme, my reaction would be the same. I am extremely doubtful that you would say the same thing.
Let's not kid ourselves, were it Fox you would be trying to downplay the whole thing as self-defense.
As for me, you don't have wonder. I'm no more fond of the Guardian or the Verge posting slanted articles than Fox.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
The second part says "We're giving you a pass on this one, but not the next."
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Naturally, you're just spouting off because you don't have a concrete example.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
This is a freedom of speech thing. I find the post mildly humorous, yet silly. Yet, I get the message.
The poster has the right to post any non-slanderous content desired.
While the constitution does (guarantee) this right, his/her identity was never intended to be unknown.
Back when the constitution was written, true honesty and pride ruled society.
Things have changed in today's technologically armed society; and laws need to catch-up.
(There are lots of ignorant, uneducated, immature citizens out there;
thanks to 800-pound gorilla twisted capitalistic corporations.
And I digress from there.)
Slanderous content must be punished. Non-slanderous content should not matter. Educated citizens can see through crap.
In either case, the ability to accurately identify the poster seems appropriate.
Let the posting entity beware!
Of greater importance, the obvious point of the post does, in fact, point to a supremely important topic: corrupt leaders!
Trump is getting away with way too much crap. We need to step up and expose the crimes and make the fixes - as a nation!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
What CNN is basically saying is, "Our reputation is too fragile to withstand some videos posted on the internet, so we have to attack those guys".
Kind of reminds me of how certain religions get called violent, and those people get so upset they start killing people.
The fact that a lot of people are EXPLAINING here how LEGAL this is should be a good indicator of how desperate CNN is. The three journalists who resigned over how utterly false their network circus is just another data point.
Desperate moves and going after people who are posting comments CNN doesn't like are not going to win friends for CNN.
What is "it" that you are talking about? No where at your provided link does it say anything about him being a 15 year old.
"Hi, I have pictures that prove you have a "girl on the side", do you want me to show them to your wife? No? OK, then please stop writing or saying anything negative about Russia or your wife will receive the pictures."
Demanding not to do (or stop doing) something is the same as demanding to do something.
CNN acknowledged that identifying the guy may put him in danger (or rather said that they did not identify him because he apologized and out of concern for his safety). Then saying that they may still choose to identify him if he behaves in a way that CNN does not like. So, they pretty much threatened him with bodily and/or financial harm if he stops being sorry or misbehaves.
All because he put a CNN logo on a pro wrestling video.
Then again, maybe CNN really liked that video so much that they wanted more videos like it. In that case, they succeeded.
If you have nothing controversial to say, nothing that challenges the status quo, or that pushes the boundaries of what is socially acceptable that just means you are a milquetoast do-nothing that doesn't stand for anything. Your identity is irrelevant to everyone, including yourself. No one cares about robots like you because you are completely uninteresting.
Thus, your post hits every beat of the old adage "If you have nothing to hide..." You sincerely think like that because it is one of your ingrained defense mechanisms. You are the socially adaptable human, equally at home in a pristine jungle society, Nazi Germany, and every variant in between. You have neither originality or principles, as both could be injurious to your position and comfort. You never fear the establishment because you become the establishment wherever you go. You are the "Little Eichmann" Ward Churchill referred to. You do not question, and you certainly never, ever stand up to power. To do so would threaten the pretty little nest they let you have.
Not all of us are built the same way. Some of us see things that are unjust, or ill considered, or outright wrong in the world around us. We also see the positive aspects of the humans around us and wish to turn those positive attributes toward these overlooked injustices of men. This can make one unpopular, to say the least.
Such speech can be seen as an attack on the body politic, an indictment of a popular power structure, or as a diminution of a loftily held institution, any one of which could lead the less tolerant among us to violence or retribution. Anonymity is exceptionally useful to people who have a desire to change the status quo. And for those who fight back against powers and structures that have no qualms about hurting them, anonymity is key.
That CNN would do something so petty and destructive as this is shocking to me. It undermines the foundations of the fourth estate more than every false story they have written for the last 10 years combined. That someone like you would support this kind of behavior is not. You don't have a moral compass, you have a threat meter. If you get scared you turn over and show your belly, just like a well whipped dog. That's how you keep a low profile and never say anything controversial online. You can't, its been beaten out of you by your own addiction to social norms. My fear is that there are becoming more and more people like you: scared, cowed, introverted, and meek who will immediately knuckle under to the increasingly normalcy of abuse by powers "above" them. Your sniveling acquiescence to these injurious predations is so complete you even find ways to defend them before others, holding yourself up as some kind of positive example of how people should be.
What is worse, you will, without any provocation or self doubt, turn on the people around you who dare to speak up. After all, they're just childish assholes in your mind, right? And who better to discipline them than you?
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Australian guy here. An outside perspective. You guys are ridiculous.
It seems from the initial post, and from a great many of he posts here, that you are all desperately trying to read something in to CNN's point that they've seen the guy move on, and they're not going to identify him at this stage, because presumably they feel that this particular part of the whole violence against journalists issue is played out. It is not a threat.
Seriously, you guys need to get some perspective.
I thought Mario Cuomo could have been Pres... back in the 1980s. Seems he didn't want it. He would have been way better than say Dukakis or Mondale. Just google cuomo 1984 speech.
I think I've got communist followers of my posts.
Great speech.
He would have had a better chance than Mondale or Dukakis. Don't know if he would have won though.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Lies, beget lies, which beget lies. CNN was so outraged that they hunted down a person of no importance simply because they wanted to punish them for a GIF they didn't like. People who follow CNN feigned moral outrage with them. The few watchers of CNN foolish enough to keep them on a pedestal were outraged on behalf of CNN hearing only the side CNN presented. CNN ratings, which were already low have dropped even lower. If not for deals with airports, they would have far far lower ratings.
Extortion, and specifically blackmail, is law and can be found relatively easily. Ted Cruz was the first, but not the only, person to publish the laws and statutes. You are simply denying facts.
As I said several times on this topic (perhaps different threads) the only question is whether or not someone would have balls enough to prosecute the correct people at CNN for the extortion. Based on law, if the case made it to a Jury there is a high probability that they would be found guilty of at least 2nd degree criminal extortion. Especially true in NY and GA, but not limited to those jurisdictions. Those two are viewed in particular because CNN has a HQ in Atlanta GA and business offices in NYC.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Murder is illegal. What we have here is a guy doing something, CNN planning to publish his identity, the guy argues against it and does certain things, and CNN will publish if he does those things again. My brother argued his way out of a parking ticket recently, but the official he talked to said he wouldn't get away with that again. Exact same thing.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
More like "Hi! I have pictures that prove you have a 'girl on the side'; do you want me to show them to your wife? No? OK, then please stop seeing that girl or your wife will receive the pictures."
I don't see that CNN acknowledged that identifying the guy would put him in danger. Apparently, the guy really doesn't want to be identified for undisclosed reasons. It's quite possible that the guy would suffer harm if identified, and Slashdot groupthink on that is "You put it on the net, you idiot! Shame on you!" The guy apparently proposed an agreement for anonymity, and CNN has pointed out that violating that agreement will result in removal of anonymity. CNN has not threatened him over anything else.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
https://www.vox.com/policy-and...
CNN also provided a statement to me in its defense: âoeCNN decided not to publish the name of the Reddit user out of concern for his safety...."
And the way you changed my example, in my opinion, that is still blackmail. "Him no longer seeing that girl" may be as valuable to you as some amount of money and you get that value by threatening somebody with an action, that, while legal on its own, would cause damage to him. For all I know, you want to see that girl yourself and the pictures are just a way to make your competition go away. So, in my opinion, demanding that he stop seeing the girl (or stopped posting pro-Trump messages) is the same as demanding money or services.
The way I see it, this is wrong whether the initial action is legal or not. If you saw somebody commit a crime, you have to report it to the authorities (or not, if you consider the law to be wrong), not blackmail him. If what you saw was legal, then it is none of your business and using evidence of it to extract money, services or anything of value to you and him (including stopping some action) is wrong. After all, otherwise where would the line be? Stop posting pro-Trump videos? Stop driving an inefficient car? Stop owning a gun?
I also wonder if CNN would have done the same, if the Reddit user had made an anti-Trump video or used Fox News logo instead of CNN logo.
Sounds like an antivaxxer or young earth creationist wanting their views to be considered, because reasons.
FTFY. In any case, the allegedly anti-semitic etc posts have nothing to do with the video in question, which makes CNN the asshole here for Othering him, as well as anyone who parrots their demagoguery.
Other than your advocation for othering and doxxing, of course.
No. You're not.
Lies, beget lies, which beget lies.
CNN ratings, which were already low have dropped even lower
You are simply denying facts.
CNN has most watched second quarter on record, from June 27th, 2017 / Now in the Top 10 in all categories for cable networks.
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn....
Trump's claim that CNN ratings are down is 'pants on fire'.
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
This is post is just bizarre. Why didn't you fact check first? Don't you understand how your credibility depends on not posting outright falsehoods?
So lets say they publish his info.
Whats next? He should sue them. But what are the direct consequences for him? Will they publish it with an instigation to kill him or what's the threat here?
Nothing like using biased sources. You see nothing wrong with using a cnn site as a source of truth about cnn? Seriously? Fox doubles CNN, and CNN gets bogus bonus numbers due to license agreements to be in airports, bus stations, etc... http://variety.com/2017/tv/new...
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.