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
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
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.
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/She created the video. Didn't just repost it.
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
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)....
I think CNN's time would be better spent on things like making the obvious connection between bribes and policy than tracking down insulting memes on the internet. Even on the subject or racism, they'd be better of covering racist policing and the racial bias that is deeply ingrained in the war on drugs.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Exercise free speech in an unpopular way, media outlet threatens to dox you.
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.
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.
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.
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
I believe fraud was already proven several times:
CNN reported that James Comey would testify he did NOT tell Trump that he wansn't under investigation. The next day Comey, under oath said that he told Trump he was not under investigation several times.
3 CNN "journalists" were forced to resign (read fired) for publishing a false story about a Trump associate that was totally baseless. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
A CNN producer was caught on hidden camera admitting that the Trump Russia scandal was BS: http://www.tmz.com/2017/06/27/...
Van Jones, a former Obama lackey and CNN contributor was also caught on undercover camera admitting the same thing: http://www.washingtontimes.com...
Pretty sure you would win that case plus legal fees plus counter suit damages for frivilous suit from CNN...
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
The claim that making a gif of a CNN logo being wrestled is the same thing as threatening violence against the media is such a stupid statement I'm not even sure where to start.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
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.
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.
cry fowl
What's the matter, too chicken to take the heat?
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."
No, that's hypocrisy.
The bill of rights does not give anyone any rights. The right to say whatever the fuck you want is a natural "god-given" right. The 1st amendment is a promise (often broken) by the federal government not to take away or limit that right.
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
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.
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.
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.
What? Of course I argue against human rights as an inherent concept. It is something a society decides upon - nature doesn't care one bit.