Americans — not uniquely, but powerfully — wallow in political hypocrisy about online rhetoric.
We're not consistent in our arguments about when vivid political speech speech inspires, encourages, or promotes violence. We're quicker to accept that it does when used against our team and quicker to deny it when used on the other team.
We're not consistent in our moral judgments of ugly speech either. We tend to treat it as harmless venting or trolling or truth-telling if it's on our team and as a reflection of moral evil if it's on the other team.
We're not consistent in our arguments about whether online abuse and threats directed at people in the news are to be taken seriously or not. We tend to downplay them when employed against the other team and treat them as true threats when used against our team.
We're not consistent in our arguments about whether calling some individual out by name exposes them to danger. We tend to claim it does when the person supports our team and sneer at the issue when the person supports the other team.
We're not consistent in our treatment of the significance of behavior by obscure individuals. When some obscure person's online speech gets thrust into the limelight, we tend to treat it as fairly representative if they're on the other team and an obvious non-representative outlier if they are on our team.
We're hopelessly bad at applying consistent legal principles to evaluate whether speech is legally actionable depending on which team it comes from.
We're pretty inconsistent in our assessment of what social consequences should flow from ugly speech, with our views of proportionality, decency, and charity diverging widely depending on whether the person at issue is on our team or not.
So it can't be a shock that the reaction to CNN's story about a Redditor is a total shitstorm.
I think it's a legitimate story that the White House plumbs the depths of Reddit for content to post on Twitter. I think it's a legitimate story that the sort of people who post Trump-fluffing memes also post bigoted garbage — that this is the community that the White House looks to for inspiration. I think the existence and nature of sad people like this Redditor — someone who, at the most charitable interpretation, derives pleasure and meaning from pretending to be bigoted — is a legitimate and important story, especially in light of the White House's fondness for them. I think that it's a legitimate and sick-fascinating story to know what sort of person derives pleasure from posting a chart showing the pictures of CNN employees with stars next to the Jews. Does he have a job? A family? How does this hobby impact his life?
I also think that CNN has an absolutely protected First Amendment right to seek his name and publish it if they wish. The First Amendment should place strict limits on CNN's ability to use the power of the state (like discovery in a lawsuit) to unmask an anonymous person, and does. But CNN, and any private individual, has a right to figure it out on their own and talk about it, just like this creepy damaged human has a right to post the Jews-at-CNN chart in the first place.
But there's a difference between legal and moral approval. I defend the Redditor's right to post bigoted garbage but deplore him for doing so. And, under these circumstances, I personally think that it would not be proportional for CNN to use its power to name the person. A number of factors might change my view — it the guy was directing bigoted invective or threats at anyone instead of just posting it in a forum made up of similar losers, if the guy had a position of trust that required treating people equally (like, say, a public official or police officer or teacher), or if the dude was doing something like posting child porn or the sort of creepshots that took down Reddit super-troll Violentacrez.
CNN didn't publish his name. But CNN published this:
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.
I found this alarming and ugly. CNN should publish the name or not publish the name. For CNN to tell him what he should or shouldn't say in the future, and threaten him that they will reveal his name in the future if they don't like his speech, does not make them sound like journalists. It makes them sound like avenging advocates, and lends substantial credibility to the argument that they pursued him because he posted a GIF about them. I don't know what they actually intended — they've denied intent to threaten and claim this was only to clarify that there was no agreement. If so, that could have been conveyed much less like a threat. However they meant it, this is reasonably interpreted as a warning that the Redditor must speak only as approved by CNN or suffer for it. That's grotesque. Legal, but grotesque.
The internet is, in human terms, very new. We still don't have coherent shared values about how we use it. Our views on ugly internet speech and the proper response to it are particularly confused. As I've argued for a while, the argument "you have to shut up so I can feel safe to speak" is not coherent. "There's absolutely nothing wrong with my speech but there's something wrong with you identifying me as the speaker" is not particularly coherent. "You are silencing free speech by criticizing it" is not coherent. "This speech is insignificant but it's wrong for you to highlight it" is not coherent. "People should be able to post graphics identifying all the Jews at CNN without anyone figuring out who they are and criticizing them by name" is not coherent. Troll visions of free speech — in which society works together harmoniously to ensure that they can post bigotry without any social consequence — is incoherent. (I also think trolls would hate that world if they got it, since their pleasure depends upon people being upset.)
As I said when I wrote semi-anonymously, I think people should be prepared to accept the social consequences of what they've written if someone is able to figure out who they are. But I also think we should consider whether to inflict social consequences when appropriate on people who breach the anonymity of others. Sometimes social consequences — even severe ones — may be appropriate. If some anon is sending death threats, I honestly have no problem with their name being published, whether or not their friends cry "it's just trolling." I'm also not terribly sympathetic to the proposition that I should be able to send abuse to people anonymously — you by the ticket, you take the ride. If someone officially charged with treating people equally posts things suggesting they do not, that seems like a correct time for naming them. Otherwise, though, I think we should talk about whether naming people who act like assholes is proportional or decent. And certainly we should talk about whether it's decent for a major network to threaten to name someone unless they speak acceptably.
None of this means I have to take seriously the hollow fury of everyone who rails at CNN, though.
Edited to add: The notion that it was execs and lawyers who inserted the threat is both comforting (because it means the journalists aren't as foolish or awful as I thought) and horrifying (because it means the execs and lawyers are morons indifferent to the harm they do to their journalists).
Last 5 posts by Ken White
- CNN, Doxing, And A Few Ways In Which We Are Full of Shit As A Political Culture - July 5th, 2017
- How the Southern Poverty Law Center Enraged Nominal Conservatives Into Betraying Free Speech Values - June 29th, 2017
- Shock, Dismay In Academia At Scorpion Acting Like Scorpion - June 28th, 2017
- Free Speech Triumphant Or Free Speech In Retreat? - June 21st, 2017
- The Power To Generate Crimes Rather Than Merely Investigate Them - June 19th, 2017
What do you mean "warning that the Redditor must speak only as approved by CNN or suffer for it" is legal? They threatened to publish his name in connection with posts that could destroy his reputation if they don't approve of his behavior. How is that any different than threatening to give salacious photos of someone to his wife if he opens a business next to yours. Just because something is legal to do doesn't mean it is legal to threaten to do it.
I don't see it. In this instance, the guy just photoshopped the CNN logo on some footage of professional wresting. Anyone could have done this. In fact, since CNN threw down the gauntlet, many people across the country, and perhaps the world, have been doing the same. The identity of the person who did this is irrelevant. There is no public interest in his identity whatsoever. This is shitty journalism, and exactly what I'd expect from CNN.
No one would have blinked if a lesser news org threatened to do it. CNN acts holier than though and the reaction is deserved piling on with the other problems they've been having this week.
CNN has gotten away with a lot over the years. Maybe their luck is running out.
" they've denied intent to threaten and claim this was only to clarify that there was no agreement"
Hours later, after they state the article was wrong and misleading in that sentence?
They still haven't found a competent writer to correct it?
That seems… unlikely. Doesn't it?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html
I am always fascinated by your analysis of legal questions. Perhaps you could break down why you think that CNN isn't doing blackmail. It's not provably a threat? It's on a political subject and so gets extra first amendment protection? Something else?
"you by the ticket, you take the ride."
"buy".
Feel free to delete this comment if you fix the post. Thx.
Eh, since CNN has the legal right to publish the guy's name and it would not be unethical for them to do so, it can set its criteria for choosing whether or not to publish his name.
"Legal, but grotesque."
*Is* it legal? Various infuriated rightish blogs are tossing around N.Y. Penal Law § 135.60, "Coercion in the second degree," which seems facially satisfied (pending, perhaps, some better evidence regarding intent). The law criminalizes "compel[ling] or induc[ing] a person to … abstain from engaging in conduct in which he or she has a legal right to engage, … by means of instilling in him or her a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will … [e]xpose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule …"
l'm not calling for prosecution here, but I don't regard the above as unconstitutional (and it and similar statutes have been held generally constitutional), and it *does* seem to cover what you and I both know was the intent. The missing piece would be to *prove* that intent beyond reasonable doubt, which would probably be a little tough.
You just came out in support of CNN -literally- blackmailing a 15 year old punk kid into silence, for being a 15 year old punk kid. does the phrase "censorious asshats" ring any bells?
I'm out.
Once again, a thorough analysis reveals that nearly everyone involved in a big story is a failure. Our president posts stupid videos that he got from terrible people, our president's supporters are those same terrible people, and the news media opposing the president engage in petty blackmail. Pigs wrestling other pigs in a mud pit.
What can we do about all this? Is there some kind of collective action we can take to encourage people to act in a more principled manner? Or are we stuck with this mess for the foreseeable future?
You wrote: "I think it's a legitimate story that the White House plumbs the depths of Reddit for content to post on Twitter. I think it's a legitimate story that the sort of people who post Trump-fluffing memes also post bigoted garbage — that this is the community that the White House looks to for inspiration.”
Why do you think your assumption/suspicion = legitimate story? It seems you, like CNN, don’t understand how the internet works. Stuff gets passed around, and it’s only the content that matters, not the history or reputation of the content creator. Nobody feels obligated to vet the creator and/or all the people who altered/distributed the content following its creation. The notion is plainly absurd. Besides, Trump didn’t post the original work of the possibly racist Redditor. The meme had been altered subsequent to its creation. So aside from Trump's "source" being a factor that shouldn’t matter, how is it even rational to suggest "the White House plumbs the depths of Reddit for content”?
I started out on Usenet. I was even, long ago, a troll. I quickly grew out of that. My experiences on the Internet over three decades have caused me to have the following conclusions:
1) I take all trolls at face value and assume they are serious in what they say.
2) I assume that what a person says on the internet is what they really think, and that if they say otherwise in "real life", then they are lying in "real life".
3) I do not differentiate between a person's online persona and the person in "real life". Internet is real life and no different than being seated across the table from me.
4) Fuck anonymity.
4a) No, really, fuck it.
4b) I don't bother hiding my tracks on my handle. And I won't protect your tracks either.
4c) One way to solve the problems you mention is to eliminate anonymity on the internet. I support that.
He's not a kid. I don't know where that rumor started, but he's a middle-aged guy.
This doesn't necessarily follow. All the pieces of blackmail are legal themselves. I can choose to give you $45,000 and you can choose to not tell my wife about the affair. But it can still be blackmail. (NB: I am not saying this is blackmail.)
This guy has been posting racist shit for years, but CNN didn't give a hoot until he posted a nonsense GIF that made fun of them that took a few minutes to make. I think it made the top of /r/the_donald. (I got kicked out of there after my third comment but it's still interesting to see what people you disagree with strongly are saying.)
@Salem, I think you would have to prove that CNN is receiving something valuable from the victim in return for him… not posting shitty stuff? To me (a layperson), it just seems like the bluster of "Don't come at me, or you'll regret it!" more than trying to get something concrete.
There would be nothing wrong with what CNN did if they weren't a news organization. But, of course, they are. You can't be a credible news organization if you threaten people with negative coverage if they criticize you. And they used horrible judgement by tracking down the redditor. A news organization has to be very careful reporting on stories that they are involved in. Given the limited journalistic value of the name of a rando troll, and the potential to look vindictive, they shouldn't have gone anywhere near this guy. They blew their credibility for a non-story. They should have let other organizations report it if it was newsworthy.
"There's absolutely nothing wrong with my speech but there's something wrong with you identifying me as the speaker" is not particularly coherent.
Eh-I'm not sure if this is right. I think that one can believe that their speech is both important in its content and unpopular enough to fear retribution. People have published important work anonymously/pseudonymously.
So why the pseudonym in the first place?
If CNN had initiated a libel lawsuit against the person who made the GIF, would you have sent out the PopeHat signal to ask someone to help with an anti-SLAPP action against CNN?
CNN is using the threat of doxxing, knowing full well that there are legions of violent leftists who will enforce their wish to silence and punish that Redditor.
The method is different, but the aim and result are exactly the same as a SLAPP lawsuit.
"Americans — not uniquely, but powerfully — wallow in political hypocrisy about online rhetoric. "
We're about to find out if Popehat is going to wallow in political hypocrisy or not.
What say you, Popehat?
Agree with Ken that this is legal and there is hypocrisy on all sides. But my main point is the one from Bradoplata and others – CNN repeats long and loud that it is objective and has the highest journalistic standards.
But apparently there is a footnote that says "Until you say something we don't like and you have no power to fight back, then we will burn your fucking hut down"
@Preston Park:
He means it's legal. There's no law preventing that. CNN can do it. You can do it. I can do it.
You may want to rexamine that statement. Not so.
=====
@Salem:
What is being blackmailed? Blackmailing (and may Ken correct me if wrong) requires a demand of money to be a crime. Threat? What would be actionable in a court of law? There's no physical threat and "reputation threat" doesn't even apply, considering that it's not libel and not slander.
=====
@Matthew House:
Except the "punk kid" is not 15, but an adult male. You fell for clickbait that's been going around. Try again.
=====
@Jeff Norman:
Are there facts to the contrary?
WRONG.
That's how you want the internet to work. That's not how real life works. And the internet is part of real life. People who pass the content around, they're just hanger-ons. I care about who created it, because that's the authorial intent.
I should be obvious to you about which I care more about.
THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE US THEN RETWEETED AND MADE IT A MAJOR STORY!
Come on — make your argument but don't dissemble about critical facts. CNN didn't go looking for some random person who did an anti-CNN meme. If they did, they would have thousands of stories sourced from reddit alone. They investigated someone who received the President's stamp of approval.
I am very much on the "out him!" side of this debate, essentially for the reasons in Ken's old post. That being said, I could also understand CNN using their discretion the other way — it fascinates me that they found a way to do exactly the wrong thing here.
@Matthew House:
Color me not-at-all surprised that you're pushing the propaganda about the person being 15. Also, I note that you're the little whiner who had an extended fit because a university president defending free speech values offended you by criticizing the speech being protected. You're not a serious person. I'm glad you're leaving. I dare you to keep your word and not come back.
@Carl:
I've had a long day already and I'm exercising my right not to have a pointless debate with someone too stupid or dishonest to acknowledge the difference between litigation and speech. Go away.
@Daniel Weber:
Disinfo from /pol/.
=====
@ShelbyC:
No, I call special pleading here. Does it violate some enforceable code, similar to ABA ethics, for them to do this? No? Then it's all good.
Unless there's a rule or law against it, they're clear to do it. Worked for Hearst, works for CNN. I don't subscribe to the Murrow Myth.
=====
@psmith:
Long-standing habit since the 1990s. Gone by it since then. Inertia to change. Go ahead and dox it if you like, it's all public info.
=====
@Kaisersoze:
Is that against journalistic standards?
As far as I'm aware, that's been journalistic standard since I was born.
It's tough to keep track of all the negations here, but are you saying that if it's legal to do something, it cannot be blackmail to threaten to do it?
Because you should have told Joe Halderman's lawyer that before he spent four months in Riker's.
(NB: I am not saying what CNN did is blackmail.)
Look at the words you just wrote. The President tweeting a GIF is now a major story. What the fuck.
Separately, I'm impressed with how Ken's post from nine years ago matches this current situation:
No it doesn't.
I'm not sure exactly what happened with this Trump/CNN/Reddit wrestling cartoon thing….and I refuse to learn.
But I'm pretty sure CNN has failed to learn the lesson of The Streisand Effect here and is essentially challenging everyone in the world to concoct animations/memes/videos/digital do-dads that A) make them look foolish and B) are hard to trace the original authorship of.
Somewhere out there are 100,000 punks, pranksters or just folks with time on their hands who, for whatever reason, hate CNN (or are just taking the bait), have a few computer skills and aren't actually racists, terrorists or child molesters.
Good luck CNN.
And people have invested a lot of effort in piercing the authorship of such anonymously/pseudononymously published work. If you publish, you assume the risk that at some point you may be identified by others. Your own belief in the importance of anonymity in some circumstances does not trump others' beliefs in the importance of knowledge of authorship in those same circumstances.
Publishing a speaker's identity is not a "lesser class" of speech than the speaker's speech itself. That's the incoherency in the argument.
@Daniel Weber:
No, I'm saying that it may not necessarily be so that this qualifies as a threat, or even if it is, that it is legally actionable. Ken may correct me, but last I recalled that varies immensely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
As for the rest, that's Total you're quoting, so he'll need to respond to that.
Do you not understand how memes work?
Coming across and/or re-posting one of them, virtually never involves any contact with (or even knowledge about) the original creator and their particular online forum.
@Mercury
The Streisand Effect is when you draw attention to something that would have gone all but unnoticed otherwise. That doesn't apply to something that was already being given enormous coverage that day because Trump tweeted it.
Dude, this is exactly the definition of blackmail. Cheating on your wife isn't illegal, and me saying so isn't illegal, but if I threaten to tell her unless you pay me, or do what I want, that's clearly blackmail. Well, looks like you know about this already, but uh:
Yeah, I'm not a lawyer, but "perform X action for me" seems like it should fall under the aegis of blackmail. What if I threaten to tell your wife you cheated on her, unless you, say, consent to be my personal slave for a year? Is that cool? Hey, you consented, and no money changed hands, all good bro!
Again, not a lawyer. But I'm pretty sure that, if you consider a secret worth protecting with your money or your life, the court would agree, regardless of their personal opinions. Anyhow, the guy would probably lose his job, which in this economy is a pretty serious threat.
…Either it is, or it should be. It's fine to argue that people have base instincts, but don't attack people who think they should rise above them.
Look, this isn't a piece of literature which runs deep with hidden meaning. The authorial intent can be discerned from simply watching the meme, and it is "Donald Trump Owns CNN", with a sidebar of "Fuck CNN, who deserve to get Owned". That's why the maker is irrelevant – the meme speaks for itself.
"No, I call special pleading here. Does it violate some enforceable code, similar to ABA ethics, for them to do this? No? Then it's all good.
Unless there's a rule or law against it, they're clear to do it. Worked for Hearst, works for CNN. I don't subscribe to the Murrow Myth."
They're clear to do it, sure. But it costs them credibility. Which is what my comment said.
@Don Anon:
I don't consider it something I could have you arrested for, no. At best, I might be able to do a civil suit. And then I would probably lose.
Of course, I would refuse. And you would tell the wife and so it goes. You take your chances.
Isn't that up to the owner of the business in question?
Let me be clear: I find out that you're doing Hitler-posting? I'm firing you. And since I don't consider anonymity to be a right and that, as an employee, you represent me 24/7, those are the chances you take when you decide to post about how you hate the blacks and Jews.
You want to shit-post? Be prepared to pay for it if it's found out. And that's why I support stripping anonymity from the internet.
I don't believe you can rise above your base instincts. I don't believe in propping up the notion either. I hold you to the exact same standards on the internet as I do in the physical world. Don't complain that I don't do double standard.
As for it should be, well, and cancer shouldn't exist either. Wish in one hand, shit in the other, see which fills up faster.
-I- care about the maker. What the maker believes is why he creates what he does.
@ShelbyC:
Costs them no credibility in my book. You can have a different opinion, sure, but what they're doing is no different than what Hearst did, and he should be considered the Golden Standard of Journalism.
Yes, I know. I'd prefer not to live in that world as well, but I don't, and neither do you.
Ok, let's change the situation a bit. What if I find out that my sister's husband is cheating on her and threaten to tell my sister if he doesn't stop? Is that blackmail punishable by referenced NY law? What if I learn that he's spending vast amounts of money flying to Nevada to engage in an intimate examination of legal prostitution? Is it legal to threaten to spill the beans unless he stops? What if my sister learns that her husband is cheating on her and threatens to divorce him unless he stops?
I don't know the details of how blackmail prosecutions work, I'm not even a lawyer, but I would guess that there should be some sort of venal intent requirement else all sorts of innocent behavior would be criminal.
I wish you would take the hollow fury seriously.
You've been an outspoken advocate of social consequences for legal speech. And in this case CNN did something that is
a) legal
b) amazingly unethical. They told an obscure redditor "shut up or we'll dox you".
If anything at all is "online harassment" this is it. CNN did that. It would have been surprisingly unethical if *gawker* did it. They deserve severe social consequences for that. They deserve the fury. I wish you'd be a little less "meh" about it.
@ExiledV2:
Hearst? Are you fucking kidding me? His papers lied their asses off in order to push for a war. Is that "Golden" in your opinion?
You're an idiot and/or a troll. Stop wasting our time.
Has Justine landed yet, Ken?
@Exiledv2
CNN's actions can be entirely within their code of conduct, entirely within the law, and still kinda weird and creepy. Since we're already talking in terms of memes – they're not wrong. They're just assholes.
I'm generally a fan of 'freedom of speech does not mean freedom from people thinking you're a jerk because of your speech' and 'Internet faux-anonymity is still not freedom from people thinking you're a jerk because of your speech', but I definitely find that a plain weird statement. Whatever their professed intentions, that last line definitely comes across as a threat.
@Mercury:
CNN has been a favoured target of Trump's for quite a while now, and Reddit's t_d subreddit is full to the brim with folks who have far too much time on their hands, have some vague approximation of computer skills, and who love to make memes about their god-emperor's foes, cartoon frogs, swastikas, the way that the children of people they hate are going to be put in gas chambers, and "sheriff's stars" in association with accusations of being under the thumb of corrupt bankers. Any extra memes this sparks off will be a drop in a giant, definitely-not-racist* ocean.
*(Everyone knows, of course, that accusing someone of racism is proof that you're the real racist, and also that chanting 'I'm rubber, you're glue' at your political opponents makes them the Russian puppets.)
Fine, but why does inserting money into the equation change things? Time is money, after all. Is it better to waste a year of your life than to waste a few thousand dollars?
In other words, CNN will have gotten him fired, because most employers agree with you. On top of this, private "hitler-posting" isn't a good reason to fire anyone – you'd probably disagree, but objectively it has nothing to do with the business – so they're only firing him because it became public and that threatens the company.
Why?
Can you honestly explain what harm comes from shitposting? It seems like the guy mostly wrote these comments in subreddits specifically designed for writing these types of comments. Regardless of whether or not this means he believes them, it's not like he was putting them where they didn't belong, corrupting the minds of innocent youth or so forth.
Then maybe you should become a believer. Start by rising above your own base instincts and stop being such a hardass for no reason. The internet is clearly a different place; "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" is not a double standard.
So you're saying we shouldn't try to cure cancer?
No, we should, and we should try to cure other ills as well.
So?
The meme has a message, one which many people share. You just want to smear the message itself because some bigoted people share the message. That's stupid, and so it is denied.
—–
desconhecido:
I don't think my post specifically addressed this, so let's add on something: it depends on how onerous the action in question is, and probably on general context – though maybe it shouldn't, but usually people will bend the rules on general context. I could see an argument that the apology itself wasn't onerous enough to really count as blackmail per se, but then according to the message he also was required to not make any postings similar to his earlier ones. That's getting kind of far. "Stop cheating on me" and "Bathe before sex" are perfectly reasonable demands to make; "Don't say certain things we don't like", not so much.
@ExiledV2 You’re the one who’s wrong and who’s denying reality. You can care about whatever you want to care about, but the fact is that neither the content creator nor those who altered or distributed the content are typically vetted. In most cases, it wouldn’t even be practical to conduct such an investigation. Haven't you noticed how vast the internet is?
You ask if facts contradict Ken’s assumption/suspicion as if I haven’t already answered that question. Again, the meme was altered subsequent to its creation by the Reddit user. Therefore, it’s not logical to conclude that Trump’s tweet indicates "the White House plumbs the depths of Reddit for content.” In other words, if you want to embrace the absurd notion that the identity/history/reputation of the “source” somehow reflects on Trump, you should be looking at whomever altered the meme rather than focusing on the Reddit user.
AND IT WAS THEN RETWEETED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
I'm pretty sure your beef is with Trump, not with CNN. Trump's the one who megaphoned it.
These comments illustrate quite nicely Ken's point about the double standards depending on whose team one identifies with!
Obviously, the guy who created the crap is a an excretion with a track record of being an excretion.
The squeals of "oooh, blackmail!!!" are patently ridiculous. There's no attempt at extortion, and there's no question that publishing the excretion's identity is entirely within the realm of legitimate public interest.
But we see people defending the excretion (albeit obliquely) with all that crap about how it's not the creator that's important, but some unstated invisible entity, or something.
And of course CNN is thoroughly imperfect… but we hear little objective comparison between them and, say, "Info Wars" and "Fox News", both of which routine spout poisonous gibberish of massively more significant import (exhibit A would be Hannity, B is of course Jones).
Fact is that the vast majority of TV news sources are mediocre. CNN seems to be being vilified for acting like Fox News, but with the willing acceptance of the Fox propaganda system, it's hard to get too worked up about another outlet taking a leaf out of the (successful) Fox playbook. Big deal.
If I had a picture of Ken White sodomizing a pony it would be legal for me to show it to the police. It would be illegal for me to tell Ken I will show it to the police unless he takes down Popehat. That CNN has the right to violate all norms of decency doesn't mean they have the right to threaten it in return for something.
CNN is also morally complicit in his uglier tweeting, because they sought him out for revenge, and once they learned of his bigoted tweets *they used them to up the ante on their threat*.
So, CNN is indefensible here.
I agree that what CNN said, and how they said it, is pretty likely to have a chilling effect on this particular individuals speech. They could have said "At this point we are not identifying the poster" instead of saying "We are not identifying the poster" and covered themselves just fine.
I think the broader issue here is at what point can we reasonably expect to have no responsibility to actions we take online. Specifically when there is express intent that those actions be heard and seen by anyone. I am specifically not talking about browsing history or other actions that are taken with an expectation of privacy, I am only talking about items a person says, in a forum available for general consumption.
I think its entirely reasonable that CNN identify the speaker now, and that they made clear they reserve the right to do so in the future. He posted some wild stuff with the idea that nobody would know it was him. Someone found out and said "if this is who you are, we're going to say so. Right now you're telling us this is not who you are. We will trust that you mean what you say, but if you do not, and you continue to act in this way then we don't see any reason not to identify you"
I think that they worded it poorly, but its a fair thing to do.
@Tice With A J:
Was it illegal? No.
Was it against a published code that all journalists are required to adhere to or lose their journalism license? No.
If it was good for Hearst, it's good for everybody. I hold every journalist to no higher standard than Hearst. Or Hard Copy. Your pick.
You want that to change? More laws. Journalist licenses. Whichever you prefer.
=====
@Sol:
Which makes them no different from the chans or Reddit, so I don't see what anyone's complaining about. Everyone's OK with chan assholism until it blows back on them.
My only concern is whether it's legally a threat. Otherwise, fuck it, whatevs.
=====
@Don Anon:
Because law says so. *shrugs* That's it.
If what CNN is doing is illegal, charge them with a crime.
If it's legal, then oh well. My mantra is "IF IT'S LEGAL, IT'S LEGIT." You want CNN not to do it, make it illegal for them to do.
No, CNN will not have gotten him fired. Information will have been made public, and the employer will make that decision in that matter. That's not CNN's problem. That's his problem.
1) If something threatens the company? That's objective.
2) You have clearly never worked in a corporate environment. Or are unfamiliar with 24/7 representation.
Tell you a story. Guy who worked for my company, in a different department, got seen by a client at a strip club. When the client raised a fuss about this, we fired the guy. Why? Because when you work for my company – and most other corporations – you represent the company 24/7. Even if you are off the clock, even if you're not wearing company-identifying clothing, you are still representing the company.
So guy was at a strip club, that means the company endorses strip clubs. So nope, gotta go. Unauthorized. Especially if clients are going to fuss.
You shit-post and it's discovered? That means, even if you do it all from home on your own time, that I as your manager condone and support your shit-posting. That your shit-posting is official company opinion, because you are an official company employee. That the company supports and endorses your shit-posting. Unless we fire you.
Don't like it? Too bad. It's how the physical world operates. Make some laws if you don't like it.
I don't think it "harms" anything. But I consider your shit-posts to be what you truly believe. And a lot of people hide what they truly believe, saying lies in public and posting their heart-felt, truly-believed shit-posts on the internet, thinking they are safely anonymous.
It's a double standard. Fuck that.
I disagree entirely. The internet is not some safe space free of consequence. In Rome, I do as I do. Rome, Tokyo, Los Angeles, I do not change. I am who I am.
No, I'm using it as an analogy. You're not paying attention. I'm saying shoulda, woulda, coulda don't mean shit.
No, I don't care about the meme because it's an ephemeral message that will disappear. All memes do. I don't care about the message; I care about the maker, because the actions of the maker are more important than the words he speaks.
In short, actions, not talk, so fuck the message.
=====
@Jeff Norman:
I don't care.
Re: blackmail,
I am not an American; that's why I asked. CNN didn't demand money, and if that's a component of blackmail in the U.S. then clearly this isn't blackmail.
However, where I live, if you could prove an intent to threaten, this would most likely be blackmail. There's no need for money to change hands – the requirement is gain for the blackmailer, or loss for someone else. Neither need be financial. "Give (or refrain from giving) a speech or I will publish your secrets" is classic blackmail in our law (dramatised in An Ideal Husband!) and while social media postings are novel the same principle surely applies. The only question would be whether CNN had reasonable grounds to make the threat.
@Tice With A J:
Was it illegal? No.
Was it against a published code that all journalists are required to adhere to or lose their journalism license? No.
If it was good for Hearst, it's good for everybody. I hold every journalist to no higher standard than Hearst. Or Hard Copy. Your pick.
You want that to change? More laws. Journalist licenses. Whichever you prefer.
=====
@Sol:
Which makes them no different from the chans or Reddit, so I don't see what anyone's complaining about. Everyone's OK with chan assholism until it blows back on them.
My only concern is whether it's legally a threat. Otherwise, fuck it, whatevs.
=====
@Don Anon:
Because law says so. *shrugs* That's it.
If what CNN is doing is illegal, charge them with a crime.
If it's legal, then oh well. My mantra is "IF IT'S LEGAL, IT'S LEGIT." You want CNN not to do it, make it illegal for them to do.
And my comments are not showing up. Why is this? Ken, is there some moderating going on?
Daniel Weber –
President approvingly retweets gif of ducklings.
President approvingly retweets gif of child porn/beatings/black person denigrated for skin colour.
So those two actions are of absolutely equal ethical and moral value to you?
Right…
In the US a crime needs to be involved for blackmail to rise to a criminal offense.
"The offense of blackmail is created by 18 U.S.C. § 873 which provides:
"Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.""
If you blackmail someone into doing your dishes because they ate your last cookie, it's not a crime.
If you blackmail someone into doing anything to prevent you from reporting a crime they committed (and/or vice versa), then the blackmail is a crime.
CNN does not even come close to criminal blackmail in this situation.
I would appreciate a post clarifying this blackmail issue. Much our negotiating with those who don't share interests involves statements such as, "If you do not fix this, I will bring it to the attention of X". I can't imagine this is illegal.
In fact, I wrote a whitepaper proposing a blockchain usecase: Using probabilistic threats to achieve an optimal agreement. If this NY Penal code is applied literally, something like this would be a no-go.
http://levetrage.blogspot.com/2017/06/shorter-white-paper.html
Salem: You are generally correct that there is no specific need to ask for money for something to be blackmail, but there still needs to be "a thing of value." Otherwise it would be coercion, often a misdemeanor.
CNN is headquartered in Georgia. Their equivalent of blackmail appears to be theft-by-extortion, which is here:
http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-8/article-1/16-8-16 It looks like they would need to "obtain property" and it seems a stretch to call his apology "property."
Every state is different of course. Some people are quoting New York law because that's where the reporter lives, and also master-of-law Assange said so, but that again looks like, at most, coercion, which is a misdemeanor.
(NB: I am not saying CNN is guilty of blackmail.)
@ Jackson Marten
I think you're confusing Ken with Patrick
@MIkee Right. To be a Federal crime, it would have to have all the elements of extortion, which requires an attempt to get something of value by threat. I think you could argue that this was a threat. The obstacles would be showing the requisite intent and somehow arguing that his silence is a thing of value.
@ExiledV2:
Did you put links into your post?
In my experience, any post with 2+ links in it is auto-moderated.
Without expressing a definite opinion, I will note that "threats" of the form "stop doing this thing or else I will reveal that you are doing this thing" are usually taken to be outside the scope of extortion/blackmail/coercion laws.
It's amazing seeing all these people scurry about with affected outrage now that the harsh light of social reprobation threatens to shine into their online world.
The comparison to extortion or blackmail couldn't be more contrived.
Is it extortion for a customer in a restaurant to threaten to leave a bad review on Yelp unless they are served soon?
No, of course not, though it may be uncouth.
Similarly, it's not extortion for that customer to go back later and edit a positive review into a negative one if they find the service suffers again after a temporary improvement.
No more is that extortion than is it extortion for CNN to post notice that while they are (perhaps temporarily) choosing to refrain from publishing information they nonetheless reserve their right to publish it in the future.
What many of the commenters here and elsewhere, and you as well Ken, are looking past is how the concept of newsworthiness informs CNN's decision.
Of course it was touched upon in the run-up of this post with the explanation that this online poster is, in fact, a public figure.
Beyond that though, what I would argue makes his identity newsworthy is the fervor with which he holds or expresses the beliefs that the President associated himself with by retweeting.
If, as the creator of the gif now claims and CNN appears to accept, his racist expressions were ill-considered jokes and not sincerely stated, then his identity is less newsworthy than if he were an avowed and dedicated racist.
The difference is that in one scenario that President looks like a schmuck for latching onto a foolish meme, whereas in the other scenario the President is giving voice to the darkest elements of hate in our society.
The second scenario is more notable than the first, so it makes sense that CNN would reserve their right to write about it if they discover further details about the meme creator.
These crocodile tears from the right about doxxing are especially grating given how they've lionized Jame O'Keefe and his at best deceptive and at worst outright maliciously cut-together hit videos.
I'll happily take a pass on the pearl-clutching that a racist might be known as such, and revel in an (insufficiently) anonymous shit-poster getting their comeuppance.
Worried about your online identity affecting your real life prospects?
Don't be a fucking shit bag and it's not such a thing ya dig.
@Mikee,
That's the (or at least "a") federal definition, but each state has its own statutes. In Georgia (where CNN is based), it's covered by extortion, OGCA 16-8-16:
I'd think that (3) would be pretty clearly implicated here, but the issue would be the "obtaining property" requirement.
Very glad I don't work for you. No, your employees don't represent you 24/7. They are their own beings, and have no duty to you outside of work. You do not own them.
Oh that's a great idea. Because then governments can harass people who would "shitpost". And fine them. And jail them. And kill them. Oh, and if the government doesn't, than plenty of progressives will have no problem getting people fired. For things they deem "unacceptable". Believe in free speech? Fired. Believe in gun rights? Fired. Believe in a fair trial? Fired. Believe in free exercise of religion? Fired.
I almost got fired for believe in gun rights because some knucklehead in California didn't like a tweet I did. He saw I worked for a school, so he contacted them. THAT'S what a non-anonymous only world would be like.
So now, I post anonymously, so I can speak freely without my job being threatened. So that I can support my family. Its sad you don't support that.
Which brings me back to the original post. Regardless of whether its legal for CNN to do what they did (I believe its blackmail), it is completely immoral. And no just society should support such an action.
What CNN did wasn't blackmail, but could be construed as evidence of a conspiracy to interfere with the exercise of his first amendment rights, which I'm fairly certain is a crime.
@YoSup
The problem is that in the current political climate, exposing his identity would expose him (and his friends, family, etc.,) to very real violence, death threats, etc. Therefore, it's reasonable to interpret CNN's 'warning' as "Stop saying things we don't like, or we'll turn a violent mob loose on you". In fact, there's very little point to publicly revealing his identity *other* than to set a mob on him.
Yeah, 18 USC §873 is a federal law that only covers blackmails involving threatening to report a violation of federal law, which obviously does not cover most instances of criminal blackmail. You would want to look to state law to determine whether this is illegal.
If Congress attempted to enact a general blackmail statute it would probably be found unconstitutional, though they probably have the tools and precedents necessary to enact laws that would effectively cover most blackmails as a practical matter, if they wanted to.
@Alyric
In most cases of "stop doing this or I will reveal you are doing this", for the threat to be effective, it needs to be such that the underlying behavior is widely disliked.
Climb down off my ass, Exiled, or take a walk around the block. Your posts were in spam and I was in meetings.
"you by the ticket, you take the ride"
Am I near the ticket? I do not want to take the ride.
My fury isn't hollow. It's solid chocolate. CNN dragged some private person into for no reason I can discern except to punish wrong thought. If they can't stop at "private person relevant to no one's interests but CNNs aching humorless backside" journalism is dead.
In general, if someone is clearly interested in having a different discussion than you, stop trying to make him have the discussion you want. Just ignore him and move on with your life.
That said, calls for conspiracy indictments should really include RICO and libelslander, as well as ponies.
"There's absolutely nothing wrong with my speech but there's something wrong with you identifying me as the speaker" is not particularly coherent."
I can't disagree with this more. We fundamentally understand that CNN posting this man's name would have ruined his life. We get that hundreds or thousands of people would have done their level best to take away his job and personal relationships and would likely have had a large amount of success for doing so. We also understand, if we are honest, that the power to do these things to this man would exist whether he was in the wrong or not.
Now let's imagine a hypothetical: Say there was a person with valid, moral and coherent speech that was nonetheless unpopular. Imagine this hypothetical person was as vulnerable to this attack as average, I.E. he could easily be destroyed by a large, powerful and popular entity calling for his harm. This powerless person is only protected his anonymity and the norm that it's wrong for large, powerful corporations to pierce the veil of that anonymity and feed him to the wolves.
In short, anonymity is a tool of the powerless, and really only a tool of the powerless. CNN's power comes from being known and they try to be as known as possible. Further, they are powerful and large enough to defend themselves against a variety of attacks while being known. With no real upsides and huge downsides, anonymity is counterproductive to the powerful. To the powerless, no power is conferred by anonymity, but a certain superficial level of protection IS conferred.
Does that mean this guy is a good guy? Nope! He's a real bad guy, it seems, and he uses anonymity to hurt. But other guys throughout history have used anonymity as a shield while they used their speech to help, and others have used it to get their speech out when they themselves were kept from effective speech by unrelated factors(Silence Dogood springs to mind.).
Anyway, I just thought that line was bad and not thought out. All the same arguments for why free speech is a good thing also apply to anonymity, pretty much, and I'm surprised you'd be for one and against the other. That being said, you are the best thing on the internet, so don't think I'm trying to go after you personally. You do a lot of good and I consider you to be a highly worthwhile person.
This raises an obvious thought experiment: Consider an alternate universe where CNN did not contact u/hanassholesolo before publishing. They did their research, discovered his real name, and included it in their article.
1. Would anyone care? Would the "metastory" about the article exist?
2. From the perspective of u/hanassholesolo, how does this scenario compare to the real universe? Which is better for him?
3. Morally speaking, how do the alternate-universe CNN reporters compare to the real version?
My answers:
1. I doubt there would be a metastory. CNN and other news organizations publish people's names all the time; doing so again is not newsworthy. Thus, no one would care.
2. This alternate version is strictly worse than reality for u/hanassholesolo. We know this because he effectively had a choice between the two: if he preferred the alternate-universe, he could have ignored CNN or told them to fuck off.
3. I'm honestly not sure. On the one hand, it's not unreasonable to say that CNN blackmailed this guy. On the other hand, my answers to (1) and (2) are hard to reconcile with the idea that alternate-universe CNN is morally better than real-universe CNN. On the gripping hand, this asshole is on the other team, he deserves whatever he gets.
Further scenarios:
B. CNN does contact u/hanassholesolo before publishing their article, but they always intend to publish his name (and do so) and make no statements otherwise.
C. As (B), except u/hanassholesolo asks CNN to withhold his name and they ignore him.
D. As reality, except CNN publishes the article using only u/hanassholesolo's handle and never indicates that they know his real name.
@DavidGuild
Though I agree it's better for him in this case, I don't think we can generally infer that because someone does something to keep a secret that it's in their best interest to do so. People tend to vastly overestimate how bad things would be for them if some embarrassing info got out, and also the motivation of avoiding embarrassment can be strong enough to override their rational judgment (just as a person might have difficulty running a long distance without resting for a large sum of money even if they think it is clearly in their best interest to do so.)
@Patrick Henry, the 2nd
I agree it's unethical. But to say you believe it's blackmail seems an odd statement. To the best of my knowledge, your or my beliefs about whether or not something is illegal has no bearing on its actual legality. You either know it's blackmail, know it isn't blackmail, or don't know whether or not it's blackmail.
I personally do not know whether or not it's blackmail, though I'd be interested to know. It's coercive obviously, whether or not one regards it as ethical/moral. But that isn't the same thing as it being illegal. Many acts widely regarded as unethical and/or immoral are not necessarily illegal. For better or worse (I think for better, IMHO), modern Western civilization does not use the legal, and by extension physical, force of the State to enforce all moral behavior on its citizenries.
@ExiledV2
You understand why that would put the voices of countless marginalized people throughout the world at the mercy of those with power, right?
I ask because I want to make sure you understand the implication of such an extreme position. And if you do, I have to ask why you're willing to put the unprivileged at risk in meat-space in order to unmask trolls on the internet? That seems like a very dubious exchange. I certainly wouldn't support it, but I'm genuinely curious why someone would.
Also, are you unconcerned about those who will use the identities of people they dislike to cause them problems in meat-space and online (swatting, stalking, DDoSing and other attacks on associates into isolating them, far more sinister coercion such as Sesame Credit), as they demonstrably already often do when doxing occurs?
I hope you've simply not thought through the consequences of compulsory universal doxing across an unlevel playing field.
Finally, in addition to the moral implications, there's the technical problem. Even when a company such as Facebook or Google tries to enforce real-name policies within their own sites, they fail in often horrifying ways. The idea that it could be successfully enforced across the entire internet is risible, but it would dox those who are rules-followers or merely lack the technical skill to circumvent it while failing to unmask actual trolls and griefers to whom it would make everyone else far easier targets.
For those of you OK with what CNN has done here (and note, I'm saying "ok with it" not "thinks it's legal"), let's try a different situation. In the US, trans-gender individuals are not a protected class in most places, and there are still quite a few homosexual folks still in the closet. Would you be ok with Fox News (or any other conservative news outlet you can think of) hunting down every anonymous homosexual or trans meme creator that criticizes them, and threaten to publish that information in a news article to the entire world unless they stop posting things in support of homosexuality or trans rights or criticizing the news org? Would you be ok with it if the POTUS tweeted one of their memes and then said news organization threatened them with exposure unless they stopped saying things? There are still people for whom being outed like that would have just as detrimental of an effect on their lives as it will for this person. In fact just a year ago, we rightly lambasted The Daily Beast for simply inadvertently outing closeted homosexual athletes at the olympics, never mind actual malicious intent.
Ken talks often about proportional response, and frankly what CNN has done (or threatened to do) here is IMO complete out of proportion. To start with, the guy wasn't made famous for his hateful shit posting, it was for a meme that some people found amusing enough that it eventually made it onto the radar of our newest tech savvy president, who then re-tweeted it. Let's assume for the moment that CNN had evidence that the president actually received said meme via the author directly or otherwise knew of the author. Let's further assume that CNN thought it was their investigative job to determine just what sort of person the president might be retweeting. Let's even further assume that it actually is relevant to the story that the author of the meme is a shit poster. What journalistic purpose is served by outing him to the nation? What public service is performed by revealing the identity of this particular shit poster who just happened to be unfortunate enough to hit on a meme that enough people found it amusing that it made it to the attention of the POTUS? Assume this guy really is a racist bigoted asshole deep in the t_d camp and just a swamp gas excretion of a person. Does anyone honestly believe that the "liberal media" destroying the person's privacy, threatening their job, livelihood and health and exposing them to the masses of the nation will do anything at all to help him to see the error of his ways? To encourage him that truly CNN and the "liberal media" is the truth and the right way of being, and that him and others who think like him will be persuaded or otherwise encouraged to not think the way they do? Do you think outing closeted homosexuals and transsexuals stops them from thinking the things they do?
@Richard:
You know, I didn't use links, but I bet that's what happened.
=====
@Ken White:
I didn't think of that and I should have. Sorry, Ken; didn't mean to hassle you on it.
@Patrick Henry, the 2nd:
Your opinion is noted. My employer disagrees with you, and since they sign my paychecks, there goeth my opinion on the subject.
If your employer is going to fire you for those things, I recommend getting a different employer.
Don't have a problem with that, regardless of employer and/or reason. I write what I write and if my employer fires me for it, well, that's the consequences of free speech and a free country. Not that my employer needs a reason; I'm in a right-to-work state.
I support freedom of speech as per the law, not freedom of consequences from speech. Sorry.
Morality is in the eye of the beholder. Your morality is whatever you dreamt up this morning. It'll change tomorrow, if you want it to change.
Same for "just". I've never met anyone with the same idea of just as another.
I'll go by the law. And I'll bet a $20 it doesn't meet blackmail.
=====
@David Guild:
Frankly, that's what they should have done.
I didn't have a problem when they did it to Michael "violentacrez" Brutsch. I wouldn't have a problem with them doing that to anyone.
Ken,
I'm puzzled about why you think (along with many others, apparently) it's appropriate for a news outlet not to identify the person in question. Since when is the press expected to respect the privacy of newsmakers?
I'm not a journalist, but I thought the first 'W' was for 'Who'. Journalists don't identify confidential sources (by prior agreement), and will sometimes decline to identify (e.g.) victims of rape, but I thought the general rule was "if you're involved in something newsworthy, you're in the news." Does that mean an otherwise private person might suddenly find him/herself famous or infamous? Yep. Tough noogies. That's how it works.
Maybe I'm wrong about how journalism works, or maybe the rules are different for the internet? That would strike me as very odd. I wouldn't go quite as far as ExiledV2's original post. I grant that people can try to hide their identity while making public statements, but surely the press has a right (and a sort of duty, when it's newsworthy) to try to dig it up (through legal means, of course).
-Peter Sutton
Everyone on this thread, Ken included, should listen to Bill Whittle's latest Firewall.
http://www.truthrevolt.org/videos/bill-whittles-firewall-truth-vs-cnn
It's a 5-minute video that walks through media bias in a clear and consise way, offering preciously rare context for this entire fiasco.
@Ken – I've seen claims from some Senators that this could violate various laws, such as those in NY and elsewhere. From your post I infer that you believe CNN's actions to be legal. Might I request some legal analysis, therefore, of how it fails to meet the elements of the relevant law(s)?
I mean, part of it is obvious given the archives showing that this person is probably 30-something and not a minor, but the rest is less so, at least to non-lawyers. Thank you in advance.
I suppose CNN wanted to run some kind of every ten minute story and blazing chryron with "gif creator apologizes, why can't Trump" while having an excuse for not naming the re-educated Redditor. So they go after someone who is not a player in the worlds most frivolous story of "Yuck, undignified Trump is tweeting vulgar anti media jokes again" Curiosity about who makes those sort of gifs or that gifs is normal I guess but even considering outing some obscure joke-maker if they cross some CNN determined line of propriety – and publishing that message – it not journalism. It IS a form of chilling extortion that extends to any "wrongthinker" of "wrongjokes" – but it is not ethical reporting. It's some kind of stupid revenge by narrative meant to shut people up, especially the ones laughing at CNN.
@ExiledV2 "I don't care."
Translation: You have nothing to say.
Alt-reichers (including some redditers) are now posting personal information of CNN staffers and their families.
Shit. I think CNN was way out of line with what they said, but will leave opinions about whether it was or was not legal to those who know the law.
But that said, I think CNN should have posted the guy's name in their first story. He made himself a public figure by posting that crap, and if he didn't, Trump did. If he wanted to be anonymous, it was up to him to ensure that nobody can figure out who he is. Whining that it was just a meme, or that he's just a troll, doesn't cut it. I've been online since before the Internet, and there have been occasions when I've screwed the pooch and been called on it. It's a learning experience. If nothing else, you learn to think twice before pressing "SEND".
As to whether the guy could get fired, I don't think that employers should have any right to what he does when he's not on the clock, unless they're paying him 24/7. But in the US, they mostly do. In most of the US, they can fire him because out of the office he's an asshole, or a Nazi, or a "furry", or eats boogers, or drives a Chinese car, or attends Socialist Worker meetings. They can't fire him because he's a Catholic, but they might well fire him (even though it would be illegal) if he's a Satanist.
@pago
It is The Streisand Effect in the sense that what would have gone otherwise unnoticed is the fact that this particular bit of fairly commonplace juvenile social media humor really, really, really got under CNN's skin and made them extremely upset.
It's sort of like when some kid randomly discovers the one name that the schoolyard bully doesn't want to be called; the one that causes him to lose his shit and yell: "DON't EVER CALL ME THAT !!" before expecting everyone to line right back up for their daily wedgie and un-know what they just learned.
Just watch what happens next. This won't end well for CNN.
CNN should have published. "Similar losers" can incite violence. Just like anybody else. Plus, CNN was probably stupid to take his apology at face value. For all I know — and for all anybody else knows — he'll be back on Reddit with new handle soon enough. Per Daniel Weber, we already know he's not the "kid" some have made him out to be.
IMO, the apology is bullshit starting from where it claims "I was just trolling," as if that's not reality.
And, speaking of lawyers, Ken, as I read that "apology," I think there were lawyers on both sides, not just CNN's. Assuming he's middle-aged, per Weber, I'll also assume that he, at a minimum, quickly knew where to get a lawyer.
And, no, I do not buy the parallels most people here are drawing when they condemn CNN.
RE: Mercury
You think if they had named him the story would have gone away?
I don't think you understand the Streisand Effect as well as you think you do.
Can CNN do anything good in your eyes? Your above description that they're going after this guy for upsetting them is a little facetious. They're journalists, they tracked down the guy who had already realized his error, had already deleted most of his posts and his account before CNN even contacted him or reported the story.
I'll bet cold hard cash that if they had named him from the start and Ken had written an article about how doxxing someone isn't technically illegal but it is immoral that you would have been posting how CNN was wrong for doing it and that it wouldn't end well for them. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
@Jeff Norman:
No, it means exactly what I say. I don't care that the internet is vast. It was vast back in the 1990s and I saw individuals band together and police it (before Eternal September) very effectively.
=====
@mythago:
To no one's great surprise, of course. They would have done that at the slightest provocation. It'll be interesting to see them dox some janitor at CNN and demand that he be hung from the rafters, though.
@mythago:
"Alt-reichers (including some redditers) are now posting personal information of CNN staffers and their families."
And that's wrong, no? Do you see now why some people are concerned about CNN doxxing internet randos?
Trump is "br'er rabbit and all you leftists are Br'er Fox.
Obama is the tar baby.
Trump is great. Praise KeK.
CNN should just publish it or not. They have no right to use his information as leverage to control what he says in the future. And everyone has the right to not be harmed (physically or financially) because of what they say. Free speech ensures that everyone has the right to say whatever they want, with only a few, very, very extreme exceptions.
Its okay to criticize another though. Criticism doesn't harm a person in anyway.
Sticky Keys said
You are very very wrong. Free speech does not mean we don't get to suffer the natural consequences of our speech. Including loss of employment, shaming etc.
David Guild,
"1. Would anyone care? Would the "metastory" about the article exist?"
Yes. It looks vindictive. CNN shouldn't have gone anywhere near the redditor angle.
I both disapprove morally and would prosecute CNN and the individual threatener(s) legally — for blackmail. (Please explain why that law doesn't apply, if it doesn't.)
The law ought to protect online anonymity, and the secrecy of everyone's home address and other info that could be used by enemies to "disemploy" or otherwise harm them, by recognizing a fiduciary responsibility over the data by businessess that collect it.
@Argentina Orange
He might also be making a reference to the fact that Andrew Kaczynski, the guy who wrote the CNN blackmail article, was also the guy who originally publicized the Justine Sacco tweet, back when he was working at Buzzfeed.
If the fact that Trump's team got a meme indirectly from the worst parts of Reddit is some sort of indictment against them by association, what do CNN's hiring practices say about them in the same manner?
(Though, I suppose he might also have been assuming that since Patrick is Ken's friend, Ken would have enough empathy to see how much remorse Patrick has over the whole #HasJustineLandedYet debacle, and think, "hmm, maybe I shouldn't support the media behaving in the same way toward a similar random person…" No confusion between Patrick and Ken required. I still think the reference to Andrew Kaczynski is more likely, though.)
TM says at JULY 5, 2017 AT 6:00 PM
Great post.
@Mikee
Ok, let's leave Barbara out of this if it helps. It doesn't really matter.
My larger point is that CNN's doxxing threat will have the effect of encouraging the creation and publishing of MORE mocking GIFs and DIY media harassment at their expense than if they had just downplayed/ignored the whole thing.
Who is the good guy/bad guy is kind of beside the point.
It seems that there is a lot of latent outrage around. I did not sense any coercion, rather I felt that they had originally planned to reveal the man's identity and decided not to based on his sincere regret. Then, in order to show that they had not gone soft (by relying on anonymous sources) they published the awkwardly worded footnote. Apparently that is how the redditor saw it as well. So, the originator did not mean it that way, and the redditor did not take it that way. As far as I can see, it would make sense for everyone else to simply accept the explanation and step down. Surely intent still counts for something?
Now, what about those people still defending the puerile retweeting by someone who should know better, but never will…?
Your opinion is not dependent on your employer.
Certainly possibly, but that's actually beside the point. It may not even be because they disagree, but the bad press and the constant harassment would outweigh that. So even if I did get a different employer, it wouldn't matter.
Then you are heartless and blind. You should have a problem with that. People shouldn't be fired for what they believe, or because people who hate them are harassing their employee. People depend on their livelihood to survive. What you "don't have a problem with" is not a moral consequence of free speech. Especially because if done anonymous it doesn't occur.
Oh its painfully obvious that you don't care. You frame it wrong to justify it. Its not a consequence from speech to be fired for what you believe, its an unjust action.
No it is not. Morality is a universal truth, and it is not what ever I dreamed up. It will not change, even if I want it to change.
Peter Sutton,
I would agree that it's within the discretion of any news outfit to decide what is and is not newsworthy. Such discretion often defines an organization, from high-minded serious outlets to your run-of-the-mill tabloid trash, so I imagine careful thought goes into such a decision.
To be honest, I wouldn't have really cared too much if CNN decided to name or not name the the guy who produced the gif. The idea of "doxing" ordinary people always left a sour taste in my mouth, but being retweeted by the POTUS is arguably making you a semi-public figure. So either decision, either to name or not name, wouldn't have really affected my opinion on CNN much. But the idea of even appearing to use this power as a cudgel to threaten this guy makes me think very poorly of CNN's handling of this story.
Now the story is about CNN. The original story is less prevalent. CNN made the story about themselves by threatening this guy. This is one of those things where even the appearance of impropriety should be avoided, at least if they want to protect their reputation and keep the narrative focused on the story and not the on the people writing it.
I'm disappointed by this. I thought the original story was worthy of discussion. The POTUS has shown, again and again, his willingness to cheapen the office of the presidency by spreading BS and shitposts (that usually run in outright racist circles). Preserving the dignity of the office was once a bipartisan norm. Now there is a president that seems to gleefully make an ass of himself, and by extension, the office and our country. Worse yet, significant portions of the country seem to support such behavior. This is a story worthy of coverage and public discussion, and CNN's stupid move has diverted attention. This makes me think less of their professional reputation as a news source. Shame.
Has CNN made it open season on internet posters .. including themselves ?
How would the employees of CNN feel if some arbitrary person read a CNN posting and disagreed with it so much that they tracked down where the reporter lived, his family, where they go to school, church .. day care ? .. and threaten to reveal them ?
Remember those immortal words of Scott Pelley, "It’s time to ask whether the attack … was foreseeable, predictable, to some degree, self-inflicted"
It's pretty clear that if CNN had named him, there still would be an outrage, albiet a slightly smaller one. The "extortion/coercion" angle would have (mostly) gone away, but the doxxing out of proportion would remain.
If they hadn't said anything about his name, just that they had interviewed him, it would look a little weird, since they are part of the story, but outside of the certain Trump bubbles no one would have cared.
And while "President Trump tweets something shocking" was news six months ago, something that happens regularly cannot be shocking any more. There's a part of TDS that says that every time it's the most important news story ever, but that's on the sufferers of TDS to seek help.