410
411

CNN Threatens Reddit User For Exercising Free Speech | #CNNBlackmail (youtube.com)

April2nd1982 が 投稿

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 239
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]hacksoncode 103 ポイント104 ポイント  (27子コメント)

So... threatening to reveal someone's free speech is not itself free speech (and more specifically freedom of the press), exactly how?

It might be a shitty thing to do, but so is being a racist slime.

[–]phoenix335 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's probably a good idea to try to find out for yourself what's the difference between a satirical video and publicising personally identifying information, maybe even with a slight hint that the guy may have insulted Islam somehow.

It's about the same difference as between a libertarian society and unfettered anarchy.

If the personally identifying information of others were free speech for everyone, thugs had free reign.

[–]acemandoomANTICOM/ANTISOC 46 ポイント47 ポイント  (24子コメント)

That is all it is. Shitty. People keep yelling it's not illegal, and it doesn't appear to be. But I think most of this sub would agree many things which are illegal are not all bad, and many things which are bad aren't illegal. CNN is a dying idiot god. They went after an individual, most people consider themselves individuals. CNN has made themselves and enemy of John Q. Public. How do you expect people to react?

[–]westnorma 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (3子コメント)

CNN is owned by Time Warner Cable which is based in New York City.

New York Consolidated Laws, Penal Law - PEN § 135.60 Coercion in the second degree

A person is guilty of coercion in the second degree when he or she compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he or she has a legal right to engage, or compels or induces a person to join a group, organization or criminal enterprise which such latter person has a right to abstain from joining, by means of instilling in him or her a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will:

1. Cause physical injury to a person;  or

2. Cause damage to property;  or

3. Engage in other conduct constituting a crime;  or

4. Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against him or her;  or

5. Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule;  or

6. Cause a strike, boycott or other collective labor group action injurious to some person's business;  except that such a threat shall not be deemed coercive when the act or omission compelled is for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act;  or

7. Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another's legal claim or defense;  or

8. Use or abuse his or her position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to his or her official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely;  or

9. Perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm another person materially with respect to his or her health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships.

Coercion in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

CNN is not publishing "HanAssholeSolo'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.

[–]LanceCoolie 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Ignoring the players in this particular clusterfuck, I'm just not sure if you publish some overtly racist shit anonymously, and I find out who you are and tell you to apologize in the same forum where you published your racist shit or I'm going to attach your real name to the statements you actually made, that it violates any of your rights. To what extent is anonymity a right?

[–]westnorma -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe this state Law can be considered a "right", but it does explicitly state what is considered by the State of New York as Coercion. While his comments are unacceptable, he has the right to say him. Just as much as CNN has the right to call him a racist or anything else. The conflict here is CNN threatening to released personal, potentially Career and Relationship threatening personally information if the Reddit user does not comply with their demands. I'm sure you could argue about whether or not the law infringes on the First Amendment but that is an issue for the courts to decide. However for now, CNN's threat is illegal on two definitions in the above list.

[–]LanceCoolie 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's illegal unless the law is unconstitutional and I think given the facts, there's a pretty solid first amendment defense for CNN if it's charged under this law.

[–]SatanakanataS -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

We're living in an era in which as long as the legality of a thing is confirmed, one mustn't question the ethics of it.

[–]CrossCheckPandaIndependently Libertarianish 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not a lawyer but it's at least adjacent to blackmail/extortion. Releasing it would be totally legal, saying they will release it unless he apologizes and stops is extortion. I'm not sure they explicitly phrased it like that but there is at least some Dennis Reynolds level of "because of the implication" going on.

[–]Penguinswin3 97 ポイント98 ポイント  (30子コメント)

I hope CNN burns for this haha

I doubt it but I'd like to see it.

[–]acemandoomANTICOM/ANTISOC 39 ポイント40 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Pieces will be chipped away, but the core audience they have left over is so dense it would be nearly impossible to remove them.

[–]SirBruceMega 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (3子コメント)

This is the correct answer. Worst part is I would imagine their web traffic increased as a result as well.

[–]anothdae 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Worst part is I would imagine their web traffic increased as a result as well.

And?

That costs them money. I turned adblock off and there is only one add on the page.

I highly doubt that their webpage makes them money.

[–]Biceptual 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Do you really think that the average internet user who can't even tell when a Facebook story is from a satirical site knows how to use ad block?

[–]mastertatto 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

He's not saying anything about Adblock, just that there is only one ad on the page that won't create that much revenue anyway.

[–]Socialism_Is_Gay 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's like watching a car crash, some people just can't look away.

[–]zxcameron 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

the core audience they have left over is so dense

By "dense" are you referring to the remaining viewership's intelligence, determination to support CNN no matter what, remaining size of audience, or all three?

My hope is that CNN viewership either dwindles to the point of insolvency, or the average intelligence of remaining viewership is so low (no matter what the size) that advertisers flee, also resulting in the collapse of CNN.

[–]throwmeawayphil 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Being held accountable for what you say by non government agencies is not denying anyone free speech. It could easly be said that a free press not allowing racist neckbeards to hide behind keyboads is good for this country.

[–]Penguinswin3 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I did not mention free speech at all.

In fact, I did not suggest any legal ramifications on CNN at all.

I hope the Free market sorta itself out, killing off businesses who do not respect the consumers/individual.

[–]throwmeawayphil 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

No but you are supporting an article saying that CNN is working against free speech. But you are right that I hope this is worked out by the free market. I also hope that keyboard racist idiots get outed in real life by the press and face there own free market issues.

[–]Penguinswin3 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

How does disliking CNN say anything about Race? Or are you just making assumptions?

[–]throwmeawayphil 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm speaking about the person that might be outed from the article not you.

[–]Barking_at_the_Moon 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Said someone hiding behind a pen name.

[–]joesmoethe3rd 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Certainly adds to the hypocrisy when they claim journalists are under attack

[–]sobermonkey 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (14子コメント)

There's way to many T_D idiots lurking around here.

[–]Penguinswin3 27 ポイント28 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Disliking propaganda is now a idiotic T_D view.

Is T_D becoming a boogeyman now haha

[–]sobermonkey 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Not really, but taking shots at CNN has practically become a battle cry for T_D and it's supporters, and there's been quite a few far right wingers hiding out around here.

[–]dtlv5813 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

CNN and the legacy media industrial complex are now going after private citizens. This is straight out of 1984 and should alarm every libertarian.

[–]sobermonkey 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

So maybe I'm misinformed, but I was under the impression CNN wanted an interview with the guy.

[–]whistlepig33 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

What is T_D?

[–]The_Law_of_Pizza 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

A wretched hive of scum and villainy that has done irreversible damage to conservatism.

[–]Penguinswin3 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The shorthand for /r/the_donald

Reddit's #1 goto place for all pro trump stuff

[–]elautobus 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is a sub-reddit for Tacos & Doritos, where neckbeards post pictures of their favorite Taco Bell concoctions. Not to be confused with M_C, or Mountain Dew and Cheeseburgers.

[–]MrF1GuyV12POWAHHH 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

A very pro-Trump subreddit.

Looking at the Wayback Machine it actually started out OK and was mostly discussion related to supporting Trump, but then 4chan users took over it and it's basically become an offspring of /pol/.

[–]JackGallian 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

/r/The_Donald

[–]askingg_questions 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I bet you are from T_D and are just fear mongering

Nice try, Donald

[–]sobermonkey 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Does talking shit count as fear mongering?

[–]Smuff23 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

*too many

[–]sobermonkey 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

English is hard for libtards like me

[–]rahadoum 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't see how this is an attack on the user's free speech. It's removing his anonymity, which he technically doesn't have a "right" to. It was his responsibility to protect his anonymity, and he failed at it. If he's afraid of being associated with the shitty things he has said online, that's his own problem.

[–]8494classical liberal 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You know you're living in a strange time when Stefan Molyneux is a voice of reason

[–]jscoppeⒶⒶrdvⒶrk 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

He used to be a bit more reasonable (to me, at least). :/

[–]alxzen66 29 ポイント30 ポイント  (18子コメント)

CNN Threatens Reddit User For Exercising Free Speech

this is fake news and I feel sorry for people who don't understand the principle of Free Speech, or the First Amendment, or the Fourth, or whatever.

edit: spelling.

[–]travis-42 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (11子コメント)

I'm a little confused. Are you saying:

1) The Reddit user did not exercise free speech?

2) CNN did not threaten the reddit user with exposing their information?

I think it's legitimate to say that CNN should have the legal right under the first amendment to reveal who the reddit user is. That doesn't make this "fake news," or suggest that it's a good idea to encourage releasing information about internet users who are attempting to remain anonymous.

I mean, I think Trump is an authoritarian wannabe disaster who I hope is impeached, but the tone of CNN's approach that they'll deanonymize the reddit user if they don't like what he posts is chilling.

The president also has a first amendment right to post the wrestling video with the CNN logo, but I think it's a horrible idea and sets a horrible precedent for our country.

[–]alxzen66 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I think it's legitimate to say that CNN should have the legal right under the first amendment to reveal who the reddit user is.

this

Free speech doesn't come with any guarantee of anonymity, so I fail to see the threat. Threat implies harm inflicted by the exposer, in this case the harm is self inflicted.

1) The Reddit user did not exercise free speech?

I am going to challenge you on that because it's not even protected as free speech against censorship form the government, the area actually covered by the constitution (I've seen the archive of his posts):

- directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio;

[–]WikiTextBot 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Brandenburg v. Ohio

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. In the process, Whitney v.

Miller v. California

Miller v.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court articulated the fighting words doctrine, a limitation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.24

[–]arteniuslibertarian party 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm curious as to which of his posts could be demonstrated to be likely to produce imminent lawless action. It seemed like he was just generally racist.

[–]alxzen66 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

NVM, I misunderstood a post of his about as burning a church/ mosque.

You are free to burn the bible, the Quran or whatever you like in the states, as long it's yours, my bad.

[–]arteniuslibertarian party 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Happens to all of us! Have a fantastic day.

[–]travis-42 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I disagree with both your interpretation as to the application of the "fighting words" doctrine, and also with the Miller v California case (which was not unanimous, 4 justices also disagreed).

[–]westnorma 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (4子コメント)

CNN is owned by Time Warner Cable which is based in New York City.

New York Consolidated Laws, Penal Law - PEN § 135.60 Coercion in the second degree

A person is guilty of coercion in the second degree when he or she compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he or she has a legal right to engage, or compels or induces a person to join a group, organization or criminal enterprise which such latter person has a right to abstain from joining, by means of instilling in him or her a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will:

1. Cause physical injury to a person;  or

2. Cause damage to property;  or

3. Engage in other conduct constituting a crime;  or

4. Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against him or her;  or

5. Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule;  or

6. Cause a strike, boycott or other collective labor group action injurious to some person's business;  except that such a threat shall not be deemed coercive when the act or omission compelled is for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act;  or

7. Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another's legal claim or defense;  or

8. Use or abuse his or her position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to his or her official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely;  or

9. Perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm another person materially with respect to his or her health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships.

Coercion in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

CNN is not publishing "HanAssholeSolo'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.

[–]travis-42 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Just because it's a state law, doesn't make it right. I believe that it should not be illegal to "Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact", or to insinuate that you might do so, just because it might subject someone to contempt or ridicule. It's hard to believe that would be upheld as constitutional.

But my comment was not intended to ultimately argue about the legality. Even if it were held to be legal, I do not believe that it should be done. What you're saying is that it's wrong for CNN to threaten to publish the identity, but it would not be wrong for CNN to just publish it. I disagree with the latter.

[–]westnorma 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You are correct when you say State Laws are not inherently Constitutional rights, however what you or I believe should or should not be Illegal is irrelevant. The law stands and is active until it is either repealed or deemed Unconstitutional by the Judicial System.

[–]travis-42 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't agree that what you or I think about a law is "irrelevant", when we're deciding whether or not to criticize CNN.

For example, there are also unrepealed blasphemy laws. In Massachussets, it is illegal to "deny" God: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section36

Would you create a reddit post criticizing a Massachusetts based newspaper if it published an oped by an atheist because "the law stands and is active"?

[–]Pint_and_Grub 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nothing is being exposed here. Someone made a public demonstration and tried to hide their identity.

CNN, is clarifying who did this public act.

Had this act been conducted in private, New York State law would apply.

[–]CurbStompRepublicans 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Title should be 'CNN exercises free speech in response to Reddit user exercising free speech'. But I guess libertards don't realize that the press is also protected by the constitution, much to their continued dismay.

[–]MetsMan71 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

libertards?

That's creative.

[–]maddata -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Pretty sure you are fake news with your unsupported statement. I'm not even sure what you're claiming is fake news? They did threaten to doxx the reddit user that made the gif.

Are you trying to claim that's not a violation of his 1st amendment rights? Sort of, you can certainly argue that the threat to associate his biological identity to his still-anonymous identity for the purpose of allowing others to extract some sort of retribution is infringing on his ability to speak freely. On the other hand, 1a doesn't really protect you (much) from other peoples' speech.

What can't be defended is the cowardly, spineless, and dishonest actions on the part of CNN, antithetical to any concept of journalistic integrity, as they are actively intimidating and coercively silencing a private person (who may in fact be a minor) for producing artwork that implies criticism of CNN.

[–]alxzen66 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Are you trying to claim that's not a violation of his 1st amendment rights?

yes, that's exactly what i'm saying, and I'm also claiming that most of you have poor understanding of that amendment. Well at least not as good as a non native english speaker not proficient in english, as you say.

Sort of, you can certainly argue that the threat to associate his biological identity to his still-anonymous identity for the purpose of allowing others to extract some sort of retribution is infringing on his ability to speak freely.

What? check for yourself what the boundaries are for intrusion.

Free speech doesn't come with any guarantee of anonymity!

[–]maddata -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I said it's arguable, and I think it definitely is.

Don't speak your mind or I will ensure you reap negative consequences

is pretty clearly a threat (or if you go through with it, an action) that's intent, purpose, and effect is to limit the free exchange of ideas.

Again I'm not too interested in claiming that it's a violation of the 1a, but it is an infringement on free speech (in general, the natural right), and it unquestionably is unethical bullying perpetrated by the powerful against the weak in an attempt to stifle free expression.

[–]alxzen66 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

as far as the threat goes, I'm not convinced.

As I have previously said, threat implies I can do you harm with an action. In this case the harm is self inflicted, CNN has no obligation to protect the reputation of anyone. If they are lying they are liable.

A good counterexample is revenge porn. Threatening someone with revenge porn is both illegal (blackmail) an reprehensible, since doesn't expose anything worthwhile to the public, it's just a threat of embarrassment.

[–]ImJustaBagofHammers 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I can't wait for all the "libertarians" here to explain how since freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences, CNN has every right to blackmail someone for making fun of them.

[–]ShadilayKekistan 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What CNN did was disgusting but legal.

[–]awdstylez 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They already are, just read the comments. There's comments basically saying exactly that. They aren't anti-fascism or anti-authoritarianism or even anti-slavery, they're just anti-government. Let anyone other than the state engage in those practices and they're perfectly ok with it.

[–]labuzan 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (18子コメント)

How is this related to Libertarianism?

[–]anothdae 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (15子コメント)

I think it's an interesting conversation about whether blackmail would be legal in a libertarian society.

Unfortunately that isn't the conversation we are having.

[–]Drainedsoul 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Let's start that conversation with this and this.

[–]SpeakerToRedditorsFilthy Capitalist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Great articles thank you.

QP!

[–]anothdae -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I mean... sure. I get that, but there are shades of grey here.

I think a better word might be "coercion". What level is unacceptable in a libertarian society?

Should a boss be allowed to tell his worker to have sex with him if they want to keep their job? Prostitution would be okay in a libertarian state, so why not this?

[–]Drainedsoul 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I think a better word might be "coercion". What level is unacceptable in a libertarian society?

I think you're using "coercion" as a weasel word since it means to persuade someone to do something by force or threats. Force and threats are very different, especially from a libertarian point-of-view.

Should a boss be allowed to tell his worker to have sex with him if they want to keep their job? Prostitution would be okay in a libertarian state, so why not this?

You use "be allowed to" and then later use "okay." One has an implication of legal judgment and the other has an implication of moral judgment, which are separate concepts.

I would start this discussion off by raising the question of why this seems as though it should not be legal but other forms of the same situation don't. People probably wouldn't find it objectionable if someone working stock in retail was expected to cover a cash register, for example. In both cases a boss is shifting the position's labor requirements. People leave jobs everyday because shifting labor requirements cause their job to no longer fit their needs/preferences.

Note that saying something should be legal does not mean that it isn't morally outrageous or objectionable.

Also note that blackmail may be a solution to the problem you mentioned: An employee thusly threatened could use the threat of exposing the offending boss to extract payment or other allowances and thus disincentivize the behavior.

[–]anothdae 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I would start this discussion off by raising the question of why this seems as though it should not be legal but other forms of the same situation don't

I mean... that is my whole question.

Are libertarians okay with that? I am not sure, personally.

Force and threats are very different, especially from a libertarian point-of-view.

Ehhhh.

I am not sure I see a super meaningful distinction. I have heard all the arguments, but end of the day there are some threats that are much worse than force. But libertarians defend force to the nth degree, and are kinda quiet on threats.

[–]Drainedsoul 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

As is pointed out in one of the articles I linked above (linked again here) the nature of what is being threatened is key in assessing threats.

If you have a right to do something, do you not also have a right to threaten to do that thing? Let's look at your example again: Does the boss in this scenario have the right to fire the employee? If so what would be the argument against the boss being allowed to threaten to do this thing he/she has the right to do?

In short the argument against the legality of this scenario distills to one of two conclusions:

  • Threatening to do a thing is fundamentally different than actually doing the thing, and you may not always threaten to do things which you have a right to actually do: If you do them you must do them without warning and therefore without giving affected parties a chance to change your mind/the outcome
  • Employers may not fire employees for arbitrary reasons/no reason at all

Which is the one you're actually trying to get at?

[–]Illinois_Jones 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (8子コメント)

This isn't blackmail or extortion though

[–]anothdae 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (6子コメント)

They threatened to expose him with the known repercussions of that if he made any more memes that cnn personally disliked.

I kinda think it toes the line.

[–]Illinois_Jones 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

They're not gaining anything from him and they're not obligated to keep his identity a secret

[–]anothdae 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I fail to see how this is a reply to my comment.

But, answering it, what they hoped to gain was to make people cautious about meming against CNN. The message is "If you do something we think is "ugly" online, we can find you and screw up your life".

[–]Illinois_Jones 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

It seems to me like they just gained a bunch of bad press. Also, if you're that ashamed of having your data revealed maybe you shouldn't make offensive memes and share them on social media. Free speech is only protected when it's directed at the government. After that, there are no rules and you should know that when you start posting stuff that could damage you online.

[–]anothdae 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I didn't say it worked.

Free speech is only protected when it's directed at the government.

For the billionth time... no one is saying that CNN revealing his identity would be illegal.

What people are saying is that it's a shitty thing to do, and more or less proves that they aren't real news.

Them "catching" and "punishing" someone that made memes online was more important to them than anything else... it was the top story on their webpage.

That isn't the mark of a respected news org... not even getting into the hypocrisy of their doxing him.

[–]Pint_and_Grub 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

A respectable news organization would have just released his information.

[–]spartan6222 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I have no problem with revealing his identity, that is perfectly fine. My problem is holding it over his head like that as a threat seems to be pretty clearly blackmail to me.

[–]MetsMan71 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not. Trump is taking over everything.

[–]ThePrinceMagus 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because this fucking sub is basically becoming r/T_D. Seriously, why did so many tinfoil hat wearing media haters invade here?

[–]qp0nnaturalist 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (10子コメント)

The troll had a history of racist comments (trolling or not its pretty disgusting) ... and CNN basically used this to their advantage to blackmail him.

There's no good guy in this

[–]ShadilayKekistan 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

He's a bigot so doxxing him is okay!

[–]Illinois_Jones -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

It's not blackmail though. If anything, they are doing him a service by not just revealing his information. They have no obligation to protect his privacy.

[–]Smuff23 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

But hanging it over his head, particularly as a major brand/organization as CNN is, makes them look like a giant collection of douches whether you subscribe to their brand of thought or not.

[–]qp0nnaturalist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

They have no obligation to protect his privacy.

True, but they had no business investigating to discover it either.

[–]Pint_and_Grub 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's their business. They are in Business to investigate and discover they call it news.

[–]mobile_mute 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

If the guy was a saint instead of a twat, the article never would have made it past the editor's desk.

[–]qp0nnaturalist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

There's no good guy in this

[–]_______puff-ery-day 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (109子コメント)

More like reddit troll fears for his job after his anonymous racism gets caught.

He's in his 40s btw, veteran, father, lives in Tennesse....

https://www.adl.org/blog/analysis-of-reddit-user-claiming-responsibility-for-president-trumps-cnn-video

[–]ThePodThatWasPromisd 38 ポイント39 ポイント  (10子コメント)

I disagree with CNN's handling of this. Either release his name with the original report, or don't. Withholding his information so long as he acts a certain way is scummy and shady as hell.

[–]lemonpartyFuck Che -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yup. "We will DOX people we don't like" is much more above board than "we will extort people we don't like under threat of DOXing."

At least Gawker had the balls to just flat out DOX Violentacrez and let the chips fall where they may.

[–]DerangedGinger 42 ポイント43 ポイント  (88子コメント)

There's no denying the man was a troll, but when a nobody gets put on the front page of one of the nation's biggest news outlets over a stupid gif he posted online with threats to reveal his true identity that's slightly disturbing. I liked it back when CNN was better than Fox, and not just an alternative.

I feel like they should be fighting against Trump's "fake news" claims instead of giving him ammo.

[–]ninjaluvrlibertarian party 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (87子コメント)

The president used the Gift. It's news.

[–]DarthRusty 23 ポイント24 ポイント  (79子コメント)

Yes. The president retweeting the gif is news. Threatening to doxx a private citizen should their "ugly behavior continue" is a scary precedent CNN is setting.

[–]rahadoum 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The "ugly behavior" in question isn't the gif; they're talking about his other posting history.

If they were extorting money from him I'd be outraged, but all they're doing is identifying him. I don't like doxxing more than anyone else, but the fact remains that it has become a standard tactic in the online culture wars. If you're suiting up to post racist shit and troll people, it's your responsibility to protect your anonymity.

[–]ninjaluvrlibertarian party 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (77子コメント)

Reporting the source of news stories is not precedent setting. It's how news works.

[–]DarthRusty 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (60子コメント)

So you're saying a meme is a news story? How far we've fallen.

[–]enmunate28 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (10子コメント)

An official statement by the president is news. Yes.

[–]DarthRusty -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Agreed. However, the idiotic creator of a meme is not news. A large media corp stalking said meme creator and threatening doxxing, is now the focus of the news story.

[–]uttuck 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Make racist tweets, gain huge popularity, and then when the people you are harassing find out who you are, they simply make it known who is verbally (writtenly?) attacking them?

This is basic stuff to me. If someone was writing stuff about my family behind a pseudonym and they would be embarrassed by people knowing they were doing it, of course I'd ask them to stop or let it be known that they were the person doing it. What am I missing?

[–]DarthRusty 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

If someone was writing stuff about my family behind a pseudonym

CNN is not an individual. They are a media organization. There is an astronomic difference.

[–]Smuff23 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

The fact that it's not an individual but is instead a major news organization?

[–]ninjaluvrlibertarian party -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (48子コメント)

When the President tweets it, yes. That's how far we've fallen. The POTUS is tweeting a GIF by a vile racist piece of shit... Of course the news is and should report on it.

[–]DarthRusty 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (29子コメント)

The story is that Trump tweeted a childish meme. The story is not that a racist ass made a meme, which is what CNN has turned it into and is rightfully the butt of huge backlash for their highly unprofessional behavior and reaction. Also the fact that they're threatening to release his identity pending further bad behavior is another step in the direction of scary. If the creator of the meme was the story, they should have released his identity. Because he is not, they are now simply bullying him through threat of doxxing. Nothing more. CNN is in the wrong and the backlash against them is fully justified.

[–]ninjaluvrlibertarian party 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (19子コメント)

The story is Trump tweeted a GIF. The source and origins of that GIF are 100% important. This was a presidential communication from the White House.

And CNN respected the man's request to not release his name. How fucking horrible. CNN sucks. You weren't going to like them regardless of this story, nor was I. But this isn't going to get you the traction you so desperately desire. For those who like CNN, this changes nothing. For those of us who don't, this changes nothing.

[–]DarthRusty 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (12子コメント)

And CNN respected the man's request to not release his name.

Pending his behavior stays in line with how CNN has said he should act. That means any future criticism of CNN could mean that they release his name in retaliation. Were the source important, the info would have been released. Instead, CNN is strong arming him into behaving in a way that isn't critical of them.

[–]Da_Penetrator 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I am going to cinema

[–]OneThinDime 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (8子コメント)

The president of the United States tweeted a gif created by a Reddit user that also created a graphic identifying all of the Jewish presenters at CNN.

[–]DarthRusty 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not defending the guy or his past actions, just stating, like most reasonable people seem to agree, that CNN's threat of releasing his info is little more than bullying and retaliation.

[–]Da_Penetrator 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You are choosing a book for reading

[–]cciv 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

The news isn't the meme, it's the illegality of the threat made by CNN.

[–]CactusPete -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (17子コメント)

by a vile racist piece of shit

And you know this . . . how?

[–]ninjaluvrlibertarian party -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (16子コメント)

Reddit account.

[–]CactusPete 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (15子コメント)

Not everything that people post on Reddit accurately reflects who they are.

[–]cciv 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (5子コメント)

No one is challenging CNN's right to report the source. They're challenging CNN's right to threaten the source.

[–]ninjaluvrlibertarian party 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

The source asked them not use his name. They didn't.

[–]cciv 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Um. Yeah. Did you miss the part where I said...

They're challenging CNN's right to threaten the source.

The issue isn't whether or not they used his name. It's that they publicly threatened him.

Here's some non-fake quotes from CNN...

"In the interview, "HanAssholeSolo" sounded nervous about his identity being revealed and asked to not be named out of fear for his personal safety... CNN is not publishing "HanAssholeSolo's" name because... he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again... CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change."

When the press can commit misdemeanor coercion of a private citizen in public, THAT is the news that we're talking about.

[–]ninjaluvrlibertarian party -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

They didn't threaten the source. They interviewed the source. The source asked they not use his name and apologized for their racist bullshit. CNN agreed not to use his name.

Later CNN issued this statement : "the network would not be publishing the identity of the user "because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, [that] showed his remorse.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change"

There was no coercion.

[–]cciv 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

They didn't threaten the source.

I see you selectively edited the quote. You removed the part where they said the source was in fear, acted according to CNN's wishes, but would be placed in jeopardy again if they did NOT act according to CNN's wishes.

Where did "asked to not be named out of fear for his personal safety" and "he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again" go? Don't you think that those are critical context for "CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change"?

[–]willyoupleaseSTFU 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Nobody cares if CNN names a source. People are rightfully pissed that CNN is blackmailing the person.

[–]ninjaluvrlibertarian party 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (8子コメント)

They didn't blackmail anyone. He asked they not use his name. They agreed.

[–]willyoupleaseSTFU 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (7子コメント)

"CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that (refraining from ugly behavior on social media) change".

That is blackmail and isn't cool at all.

[–]Yorn2 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's coercion in the second degree, and its criminal.

[–]uttuck 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is it really criminal? Can't they release information they legally discovered at any time?

If I have a car, and I'm considering selling it, but my neighbor likes it in the driveway, can't I say I'll keep it in the driveway for him but I'll sell it if he keeps setting off fireworks after midnight?

None of those things are illegal right? I have the right to do something, but I won't because someone asked me to, and I'm being nice, while letting them know my niceness has its limits. I'm seriously asking what is wrong in either situation.

[–]ninjaluvrlibertarian party 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

You added the information in quotes, that's isn't cool at all. Nor is blackmail.

[–]willyoupleaseSTFU 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

No that's directly from CNN. Do yourself a favor and read the CNN article linked below before posting any more uninformed opinions on the issue.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html

[–]DerangedGinger 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

The president's tweet is news, the guy who created it is not. When I logged onto CNN this morning their article titled "How CNN found the Reddit user behind the Trump wrestling GIF" was featured more prominently than North Korea's ICBM test. Thankfully that's changed now, but CNN expending resources to hunt down a guy who made a silly gif is a little odd, and then making him the #1 front page story is a little disturbing.

It sends a message that if you make something that is silly, but "not nice" towards a new outlet, they might expend some of the resources a billion dollar media outlet has at their disposal and try to upend your life. I feel that's a bit unreasonable regardless of how shitty that individual is. It's the kind of shit I'd expect from 4chan, not CNN. CNN shouldn't be harassing nobodies posting stupid things on the internet.

[–]cciv 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

And it's stupid. CNN CANNOT WIN A MEME WAR. Did they really think only one person in the whole world can make an anti-CNN message?

[–]ninjaluvrlibertarian party -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

The source of a presidential communication is news.

[–]Spooky2000 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

So the meme would have been 100% fine if it was done by who? Or are you and CNN that lacking in a sense of humor that the entire history of the source is necessary for the funny to be OK?

[–]ninjaluvrlibertarian party -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

How is the meme fine or not fine? Its just a GIF. But when the President uses material in communications from the White House, I think it is reasonable to look into the source.

[–]ScoutHound 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Not when it isn't conveying any information. If he tweeted an info graphic sure, fact check it, but if he tweets this what do we gain by knowing who had the audacity to use Photoshop?

[–]ninjaluvrlibertarian party 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

We learn that the president of the United States of America, from the White House, communicates childish GIFs created by vile racists. It's undeniably news worthy. It's almost incredible.

[–]acemandoomANTICOM/ANTISOC 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (1子コメント)

In anti-authoritarian sub posting ADL shit, one of the most moral authoritarian organization ever. Who is the troll again?

That said I'm at a loss with this one. I find no legal offence here. If a private cooperation decides it wants to socially and politically assassinate individuals who work against their interest I suppose they are withing their rights. It seems pretty fucking evil, but hey, evil is relative. Honestly I'm glad they did it. This 40 year old man may be some racist loser from TN but in this story (to most people) he will be the David to CNN's Goliath. I swear those people find a new way to shoot themselves in the foot everyday. Seems they're breaking out the bazooka's to do it now.

[–]kajkajeteJohnson - Classical liberal -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The ADL wasnt a burning trashbin some years ago. But since the change of leadership, oh boy they have become really bad.

[–]FlexGunshipvoluntaryist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Well fine. He's a moron. But it's only a matter of time before you or someone you love is put in a similar situation.

The point is that you should be in favor of free speech regardless. If CNN had published his named and doxxed the fuck out of him, that would be the end of it.

But they didn't do that. They extorted a specific behavior from him. They used threats and coercion to exact a specific behavior. This is the left's goal. This isn't a means to an end... This is the end itself. They want to control people.

[–]_______puff-ery-day -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

CNN didn't make him apologise, he did that himself and CNN are actually protecting him by not revealing his name.

Words have consequences, hopefully he's learned a valuable lesson.

[–]FlexGunshipvoluntaryist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

CNN didn't make him apologise, he did that himself and CNN are actually protecting him by not revealing his name.

Sure. And no one made the Japanese surrender during World War II. The threat of more nuclear weapons had nothing to do with it.

Words have consequences, hopefully he's learned a valuable lesson.

Good point. Who are you?

Go clean your room, kid.

[–]lemonpartyFuck Che 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I don't care if he posted the Adolf-Mao-Stalin Fanclub Newsletter. We have a major media company DOXxing someone and threatening to reveal their identity publicly. I'm not sure if this is a criminal offense or not, but it is certainly unethical and very fucking creepy. It makes them well deserving of criticism here and in other free-speech venues -- and worthy of people contacting their advertisers.

Ask yourself when the last time CNN did this to a left winger. Or, say ANTIFA, committing actual violence/crimes on camera. They can figure out who this guy is, but they can't figure out who Donna Brazile got the debate questions from their own organization that she handed to Hillary?

[–]kajkajeteJohnson - Classical liberal 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Its absolutely not a criminal offense. Its creepy af, but its not a criminal offense.

[–]stateinspector 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like it could be considered coercion. He has a right to free speech, and CNN is threatening to make his personal information public unless he complies with their demands. It would be interesting to see a lawyer's perspective on this, though.

[–]kajkajeteJohnson - Classical liberal -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If I read the whole thing correctly, CNN was going to publish it, send him a message about what was about to happen and he begged them not to publish, offered to recant, repent and stop the memeing.

And there are several rulings that you have no expectation of privacy in public forums, even if they are anonymus ones.

The case for blackmail can be made, but any semi-competent lawyer should get CNN off the hook.

[–]botbait 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This whole fucking thing is childish. CNN hates Trump. Trump tweeted a meme they didn't like. CNN can't attack Trump, ask Kathy Griffin. So now CNN goes after the OP of the meme. His bigotry only comes into play after, CNN is not an SJW. And now there's a shit storm brewing over the entire affair. Honestly I've seen monkey shit fights at the zoo that had more justification than this cacophony of Idiocrasy! Bigotry is bullshit and so are witch hunts. Ultimately you have to come to the conclusion that, yes, Han is a bigot. But he has no power. He's just like the rest of us. Lurking and shitposting. Sometimes with comments that are for shock and awe. CNN however is a global entity that has been steering an entire global audience with lies and half truths for the sake of profitability.

[–]ACW1129 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is a bad look.

But boy I do hate Mike "Pizzagate" Cernovich and all getting all hypocritically sanctimonious.

[–]MuuaadDib 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is really getting blown out of hand, which is truly shocking for anything related to DT. Kid makes a Gif, it is picked up by the President of the United States of America, and sent to millions. The news outfit finds the originator on Reddit, because he brags about the President (let that sink in) tweeted to millions, a Gif a kid made of his professional wrestling days. CNN sees that not only is this kid making Gifs, but he makes a shit ton of uber racist vapid hate filled comments calling for death and nigger this and that. Kid freaks out that a national news organization is now looking at who he is and what is his deal, probably the horrified thought his low end job workmates might find out his online white supremacist views he freaks and apologizes. Am I missing something here? This is the battle cry for the DT supporters? Fucking world we live in is bizarre...

[–]fox131313 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is coercion. Not necessarily directly related to libertarianism but absolutely shows the erosion of free speech in our current society when one of the biggest news outlets uses coercion to silence someone they dont like.

Dude is a troll and an ass but this isnt right.

[–]Freedman76 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is extortion plain and simple. You can't threaten someone's reputation in order to push your agenda. I hope the DOJ goes after this.

[–]WryGoatall libertarians are comrades 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This was pretty idiotic on CNN's part, doing 'investigative journalism' on the creator of some shitty meme gif that Trump tweeted at them, for several reasons:

1) They're taking the attention off Trump and putting it on some memer, which really couldn't be doing Trump more of a service if they tried.

2) This isn't fucking news and nobody is buying the "gif maker was calling for violence against journalists" or whatever they think justifies making this news.

3) If he really is just some middle aged Klan member fucking put it out there, who gives a shit. This weird veiled threat actually makes them look worse than if they'd just "doxed" the guy.

I have little sympathy for some racist idiot advocating genocide, but that doesn't excuse CNN for just handling this like absolute morons. Why they thought this was worth anyone's time digging in to in the first place is beyond me. It just looks extremely petty for them to go after some guy that made a gif they didn't like.

[–]ObamaBiden2016 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why would they do something this fucking stupid?

If they want to be taken seriously as news why the fuck would they do this?

[–]MrF1GuyV12POWAHHH -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Jesus Christ.

This is some mafia level shit. CNN and the MSM media in general are falling apart.

[–]RingGiverWe don't need roads. 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

CNN trying to fight the meme war is about as effective as a major military power trying to use conventional strategy against irregulars. Meme warriors are the insurgent media.

[–]FourFingeredMartianFilthy Capitalist -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Blackmail is a felony.. Well, it at least is if you're a small entity, or individual.

[–]Illinois_Jones 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (3子コメント)

How is this blackmail though?

[–]FourFingeredMartianFilthy Capitalist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

They have knowledge that will damage the individual's standing within their community, among peers; they are now using that knowledge as leverage to get the person to act in a way they want. It's classic blackmail.

Say you know your married friend engages in a homosexual rendezvous, of course the wife doesn't know about your friend's behavior; now, someone that covets something of their's approaches one of the two with claims they will expose that secret rendezvous to the wife, unless, they do X (give money, give access to confidential information, perform some action on the blackmailer's behalf).

[–]Jonvoightlebaron 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What does CNN gain from the "blackmail"

Cnns claimed order of events is they contacted the gentleman for comment before they went to print (so to speak). He asked them not to publish, he was sorry, wont do it again etc. So they did him a favour and didnt publish his information

Would it be illegal for a father to say to his troublesome son if i catch you stealing again i will report you to the police?

[–]harriet_tub_girl 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

unless, they do X

Wherein your argument fails.

[–]MetsMan71 -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

CNN yet again making people hate them more than Trump. Truly amazing.

[–]hisatoshi 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That is so far removed from the truth.