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.
Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequences.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
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.
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.
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.
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.