CNN Warns It May Expose An Anonymous Critic If He Ever Again Publishes Bad Content (theintercept.com) 944
New submitter evolutionary writes: CNN appears to be giving veiled threats at a Reddit user who posted critical comments about the media giant. After an apology was given by the Reddit user (possibly under fear upon discovering CNN had his identity), CNN stated: "CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change." The story stems around Trump's July 2nd tweet, which includes a video showing him wrestle and takedown someone with a photoshopped CNN logo on their head. The video was accompanied by the hashtags #FraudNewsCNN and #FNN. CNN reportedly tracked down the Reddit user who claimed credit for the tweet and announced they would not publicize the user's identity since they issued a lengthy public apology, promised not to repeat the behavior, and claimed status as a private citizen. However, as The Intercept reports, "the network explicitly threatened that it could change its mind about withholding the user's real name if this behavior changes in the future: 'CNN is not publishing HanA**holeSolo's name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same. CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.'"
Wtf (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Wtf (Score:4, Insightful)
Without taking sides? The guy obviously posted an anti CNN image, the side to take have already been chosen for them.
Re: Wtf (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Wtf (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wtf (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Wtf (Score:5, Informative)
But 8chan has now doxxed 6 CNN anchors: David Chalian, Wolf Blitzer, Erik Erickson, Brian Stelter, Don Lemon, and Daniel Merica. Their names, addresses, emails, and phone numbers are up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, CNN never actually doxxed the guy.
No, that would have been better...
They THREATENED to do it, which is a felony... blackmail or extortion is a really serious crime...
Re:Wtf (Score:4, Insightful)
First, that's federal statute. This sort of thing would be prosecuted locally.
Second, the exact definition of extortion or blackmail vary by state.
Third, in general, blackmail is usually defined to be a type of extortion (unlawful coercion), where the revealing of embarrassing private information is threatened, rather than physical or financial harm. (and by that definition, what CNN is doing is blackmail).
By the way, IANAL, and you ANAL too.... but apparently my google-fu is stronger than yours.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Your name is not private information. It is a matter of public record. If you make your name an embarrassment by being a piece of shit, that's on you.
Re: (Score:3)
CNN Is Getting Ripped for this and they deserve it (Score:5, Insightful)
What a colossal failure on the part of CNN.
* Yeah. The first time I ever used that expression.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Karma is biting them on the a$$. Couldn't happen to a more deserving group of people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Follow this (probably ill-conceived) logic:
The '15 year old' angle is doubtful (Score:4, Insightful)
Purely in the interest of fairness, there are archives from Reddit of his account that indicate that he's at least 27 and more likely 30-something, if the comments are to be believed. I don't know where that rumor started, but I prefer when people back that with facts and there are enough damning facts for CNN as is without adding items that cannot be proven to the mix.
In the end, CNN massively over-reacted to a silly picture here and I don't think the age of the person is all that relevant with respect to their threats, only with respect to a few of the statutes that require a minor.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This does fit the definition of blackmail.
"We have some information about you and it would bad for you if we published it, so do as we say or we will publish it"
It's the same as, say, taking a photo of somebody with a girlfriend and then asking him for money for not showing the photo to his wife.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I hope they get more (Score:5, Informative)
The real cure for your ignorance would be to read.
Extortion Statutes
Virtually all extortion statutes require that a threat must be made to the person or property of the victim. Threats to harm the victim's friends or relatives may also be included. It is not necessary for a threat to involve physical injury. It may be sufficient to threaten to accuse another person of a crime or to expose a secret that would result in public embarrassment or ridicule. The threat does not have to relate to an unlawful act. (last emphasis mine)
Victim wasn't 15, either, based on posting history (Score:3)
> CNN didn't speak to hanassholesolo until AFTER the apology was made and all posting history was deleted.
CNN's own damned tweets contradict that. Many images abound of this with archive.is links that can be verified.
Re: CNN Is Getting Ripped for this and they deser (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems reasonable, actually (Score:5, Interesting)
The guy admitted to them he's a troll, and asked them not to publish his real name because of the potential negative impact his trolling would have on his real life. They said ok, but if you start trolling again we may not be willing to withhold your name.
What's the better option? What they did, or publish and be damned (with probably at least a bunch of harassment for the guy), or withhold the name but not tell him they might publish in future if he keeps it up? I think they chose a reasonable course.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Although they have a reputation to protect, they could have done this in a much better way. Will Slashdot protect me if I blast CNN for bing milquetoast ninnies? Corporate media lapdogs?
I don't know. The threats, however, are very very onerous.
Re:Seems reasonable, actually (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that if this CNN GIF was the only thing this troll had done, he'd be terribly worried about it. From the CNN article:
"HanA**holeSolo's" other posts on Reddit, some of which included racist and anti-Semitic imagery
The troll doesn't want his racist trolling to come back to haunt him. CNN cut him some slack this time. You say they could have done this in a much better way - care to elaborate? As I pointed out above, I only see two other options - publish his name, or not publish and don't give him a warning, which seems disingenuous since the threat is implicit once they have your information.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for trolls who suddenly find they are not as anonymous as they thought they were.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why should CNN have this power? I'm loathe to defend either in this case, but it seems that free speech (in lieu of libel/slander) gives a troll a right to his/her boorish behavior.
Re:Seems reasonable, actually (Score:5, Interesting)
Why should CNN have this power?
We all have this power. If someone says something racist to you at a bar, you can record him and publish it with his real name on the youtubes. But should you?
I agree that CNN should not be the gatekeeper of free speech on the internet. But I think this points to a more basic problem: when do you "out" someone's personal details? Is it enough for someone newsworthy to retweet you for your personal life to be up for grabs?
I think that it would have been better if CNN had simply said: "This person's details are not newsworthy, so we have anonymised him". My gut feeling (could be wrong) is that this comment was not put past an editor who could weigh in. Another reason could be that CNN does not have an appropriate policy in place to avoid internet shaming, and that the writer acted on his own gut feeling to do so.
In any case, this should make us think about such a policy....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We all have this power. If someone says something racist to you at a bar, you can record him and publish it with his real name on the youtubes. But should you?
You can do that...
But what you CANNOT do is to record him and tell him "if you don't do what I want, I'll post it."
That is blackmail and is a very serious crime...
Re: (Score:3)
My point is similar. Blackmail, extortion, intimidation, all of these seem what CNN is doing. I'M NOT A FAN of trolls and trollish behavior. However, they should take him/her to court and settle it there.
Re:Seems reasonable, actually (Score:4, Interesting)
Why shouldn't they have the power? They were a victim of his trolling, which basically was libel and slander.
But maybe you're right. They should have just published his name and be done with it. That way all the people affected by his other racist remarks could also seek redress.
The only thing I find annoying is that I wish they would go after Trump with the same enthusiasm as they went after some random no-account internet troll. Trump is literally reshaping the reality of US with his words. I remember "Fake News" used to mean "News that was fabricated, with maybe a sprinkle of facts to give it legitimacy". Now it means "Anything Trump doesn't like". And a disturbing number of people haven't even noticed the change.
Re:Seems reasonable, actually (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody is claiming the speech was illegal. However, the speaker apparently really doesn't want to be identified. CNN has a perfect right to identify someone making public statements about them.
Re:Seems reasonable, actually (Score:5, Insightful)
Although they have a reputation to protect, they could have done this in a much better way.
No. *Because* they have a reputation to maintain they had to do in a better way. Now they just look like monsters. They threatened all private individuals not to mock them or risk becoming their target. Anytime you see CNN now, you have to ask yourself "what other information are they suppressing?"
Re:Seems reasonable, actually (Score:5, Insightful)
You think that if it was reversed - if the CNN wrestler was beating up on Trump - that CNN would go after him? The optics for CNN are f**king awful.
Re:Seems reasonable, actually (Score:4, Insightful)
What are you talking about? CNN isn't threatening him. Not by any legal or moral standard
That's equivocating bullshit. The meaning of their statement is clear.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So if I said "I'll let you live, for now" that would not be a threat? "I'll let you live, as long as you x" would not be coercion with a threat against noncompliance?
The word threat does not have a minimum threshold. Either something is a threat or it isn't, regardless how bad the thing threatened is.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're a shill (and thank fuck this isn't the People's Democratic Republic of Redittstan, where the word "shill" gets me shadow-banned).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If it's news then publish it. If its not news then don't publish it. What they're doing has nothing to do with journalism and is straight up blackmail in exchange that he stop saying mean things about CNN on the internet.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Seems reasonable, actually (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't think it's news that the POTUS is tweeting (remade) GIFs which just happen to be made by a troll who also, purely coincidentally, puts out racist and anti-semitic posts?
It's the fact that Trump uses this type of material which makes it news. The fact is that once they had tracked this guy down the did not DOX him, but the fact is also that they could, and that fact doesn't change because they say it out loud or not.
Re:Seems reasonable, actually (Score:5, Informative)
Anything the president does is NEWS. Get used to that idea because it was as true in the Reagan administration as it was in the Clinton, Obama and Bush admins. You might be too young to realize it, but that's the entire reason they call it the bully pulpit because anything they do or say is automatically national news.
That's how the system works whether you like it or not, I'm sure you loved it when Obama was in office and you could laugh and ridicule him, but all of a sudden your pony is in office and it's not ok. Well here in the real world that's how it works, you don't have to like it but you don't get to deny reality.
No Bad Tactics, Only Bad Targets (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Better summary from reddit discussion (Score:2, Insightful)
So the gif is re-tweet by Trump.
CNN got someone to find out where it came from.
Journalist tracks down person who created it.
They find out he's a racist piece of shit.
They try to contact him.
He freaks the fuck out and deletes everything and apologies.
He then contacts CNN apologizing and begs them not to name him.
CNN find him genuine and agree, and publish his account of things.
CNN reserve the right to publish his name in case he renegs (e.g. 'haha CNN so dumb I played them')
I see no problem here
Re:Better summary from reddit discussion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The day you own CNN you can make that call.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And we just celebrated the Fourth of July (Score:4, Funny)
Does CNN not realize that there is a Constitutional right to troll without facing any consequences? It's right there in Article XII of the Constitution.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Trolling would be covered under the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press
Re:And we just celebrated the Fourth of July (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And we just celebrated the Fourth of July (Score:4, Informative)
Such a perspective would imply that everyone in the world with the basic ability to communicate has "freedom of speech". Clearly that's not the case. Would you argue that people in Thailand have "freedom of speech"? Even though using their supposed "freedom" in a way that is insulting to the monarchy can have the consequences of a 15 year prison sentence?
Freedom from consequences is the foundation of freedom of speech. Nobody can actually suppress speech by preventing certain words and ideas from ever being spoken(or typed) in the first place. The only way to stifle free speech is by imposing "consequences" on people. You obviously can't speak "freely" if you are guarding your words to avoid punishment. If you have to fear consequences, other than someone criticizing your ideas & opinions, then you do not have "freedom of speech".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Ini other words. . . (Score:4, Informative)
The person, not having the convictions of their actions, agreed to withdraw the video and apologize because, and something not stated in this particular article, he didn't want to bring shame to his family.
As always, he claimed the anti-semitic remarks he regularly posted weren't really who he was, nor was he in any way proud of what he had done.
Of course that's not what he said when the video went up:
After Trump tweeted the video on Sunday, "HanA**holeSolo" took to Reddit to say he was "honored," writing "Holy sâ"!! I wake up and have my morning coffee and who retweets my sâ"post but the MAGA EMPORER himself!!! I am honored!!" MAGA is an acronym for the President's campaign slogan: Make America great again."
After posting his apology, "HanA**holeSolo" called CNN's KFile and confirmed his identity. In the interview, "HanA**holeSolo" sounded nervous about his identity being revealed and asked to not be named out of fear for his personal safety and for the public embarrassment it would bring to him and his family.
Interestingly, moderators removed the entire apology from the sub group after it was posted.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What? CNN does actual reporting? No way! (Score:2, Insightful)
Kind of amazing that CNN is actually capable of doing investigations on their own. Here I didn't think they had it in them. After all, they've been hammering the Trump Russian Collusion story for MONTH after MONTH with such slim evidence in the face of mounting evidence that their supposed version of the events didn't/couldn't have actually happened....
So, now that Trump Tweets a link to a video, they are going all investigative reporter on some reedit user who actually made the video to amuse his follow
Re: (Score:3)
Andrew Kaczynski claims he found this guy, but he also claims this guy found him, in two different tweets.
Andrew Kaczynski job at CNN is going through archival footage and editing it to create new narratives. That is literally his job. The lies he tweets is just a hobby.
"Threat" is a matter of perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
From another point of view, CNN was perfectly within its rights to publish the critic's name, as the information is newsworthy, but they protected his/her anonymity. Calling CNN's final disclaimer a "threat" is a matter of perspective (and politics, perhaps)....
They want our anonymity (Score:3, Interesting)
When I read this article I was surprised at the tone and how they treated the troll. The attitude of the writer was, "Hey everyone! We finally caught a troll! He acts all big and bad online but once we got his name he was all scared and apologetic. Don't be a scared little troll, be good online or we will find you like we found this troll." I think the writer thought he was doing a public service, but in reality he was being a corporate despot. There are people in power who want to get rid of anonymity on the internet, and the fact is, if The Man really wants to know what you do online, The Man will find out. The thing is, this problem with Russian hacking and talk of fake news is giving The Man more reasons to get rid of anonymity online.
Shameless self promotion, I wrote a cyberpunk novel about this sort of thing called Girl in a Fishbowl [amazon.com]
Seems pretty straightforward to me... (Score:2, Interesting)
It's pretty straightforward. Trump tweets the third-party content. CNN sees the content and starts to investigate the source of that content -- just as any news outlet would. They find out that the source of the content was from a Reddit user. They see a ton of other disgusting content that the Reddit user also created. BOOM --
this is a real story... the president is tweeting content from a disgusting internet troll. CNN digs deeper and finds out the identity of the source of that content. Th
Re: (Score:3)
"I don't see the issue here, folks"
The "troll" is a minor, thus coercion of a minor is FUCKING ILLEGAL, you legally-challenged fuckwit.
Hashtags Legally Actionable? (Score:2)
Re:Hashtags Legally Actionable? (Score:4, Informative)
I believe fraud was already proven several times:
CNN reported that James Comey would testify he did NOT tell Trump that he wansn't under investigation. The next day Comey, under oath said that he told Trump he was not under investigation several times.
3 CNN "journalists" were forced to resign (read fired) for publishing a false story about a Trump associate that was totally baseless. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... [nytimes.com]
A CNN producer was caught on hidden camera admitting that the Trump Russia scandal was BS: http://www.tmz.com/2017/06/27/... [tmz.com]
Van Jones, a former Obama lackey and CNN contributor was also caught on undercover camera admitting the same thing: http://www.washingtontimes.com... [washingtontimes.com]
Pretty sure you would win that case plus legal fees plus counter suit damages for frivilous suit from CNN...
Tell me again (Score:2)
CNN: Doxxing Private Citizens Now (Score:4, Insightful)
So CNN is willing to let their reporters go to jail to protect the anonymity of a source, but if you are critical of CNN they will doxx you. Nice
What apology? (Score:3)
/me keeps looking...
Re: (Score:3)
My fellow redditors,
First of all, I would like to apologise to the members of the reddit community for getting htis site and this sub embroiled in a controversy that should never have happened. I would also like to apologise for the posts made that were racist, bigoted, and anti-Semitic. I am in no way this kind of person, I love and accept people of all walks of life and have done so for my entire life. I am not the person that hte media portrays me to be in real life, I was trolling and posting things to get a reaction from the subs on reddit and never meant any of hte hateful things I said in those posts. I would never support any kind of violence or actions against others simply for what they believe in, their religion, or the lifestyle they choose to have. Nor would I carry out any violence against anyone based upon that or support anyone who did.
As time went on it became an addiction as to how far it could go with the posts that were made. This has been an extreme wake up call to always consider how others may think or feel about what is being said before clicking the submit button anywhere online that an opinion is allowed. Free speech is a right we all have, but it shouldn’t be used in the manner that it was in the posts that were put on this site. Just because you are behind a keyboard doesn’t mean you can’t hurt someone with your words or cause a situation such as this one where a simple meme is misconstrued as a calling for violence.
I do not advocate violence against the press and the meme I posted was in no way advocating that in any way, shape or form. Our first amendment protects the press from things like violence, and we as American citizens should respect that even if the opinions of the press are not in line with our own. The meme was created purely as satire, it was not meant to be a call to violence against CNN or any other news affiliation. I had no idea anyone would take it and put sound to it an dhten have it put up on the President’s Twitter feed. It was a prank, nothing more. What the President’s feed showed was not the original post that was poted here, but loaded up somewhere else and sound added to it then sent out on Twitter. I thought it was the original post that was made and that is why I took credit for it. I have the highest respect for the journalist community and they put their lives on the line every day with the jobs that they do in reporting the news.
The internet and social media is capable of a great many things, and this is an example of the not so great things it can do. Trolling to get a reaction out of people is not the best way to make a point, the way to do it is to present your facts ina manner to convey the message that will not invoke anger. To people who troll on the internet for fun, consider your words and actions conveyed in your message and who it might upset or anger. Put yourself in their shoes before you post it. If you have a problem with trolling it is an addiction just like any other addiction someone can have to something, and don’t be embarrassed to ask for help. Trolling is nothing more than bullying a wide audience. Don’t feed your self-worth based upon inflicting suffering upon others online just because you are behind a keyboard. We as redditors and as Americans are better than this.
So to the members of this community, the site, the media (especially CNN), and anyone offended by the posts, again I apologise. This is one individual that you will not see posting hurtful or hateful things in jest online. This is my last post from this account and I wanted to do it on a positive note and hopefully it will heal the controversy that this all caused. Peace.
‘The more you know yourself, the less judgmental you become’ – Aniekee Tochukwu Ezekiel.
Re: (Score:3)
That's one hell of a gunpoint "apology".
CNN has no obligations (Score:5, Insightful)
CNN has no privacy agreement or obligation to keep this person's ID private. Inasmuch as this person has caused a media event thanks to their creative editing, they have made themselves into a newsworthy subject and thus CNN Is well within norms of journalism to reveal who it is.
For that matter, so is any other part of the media. If any of them also have the identity, then there is ground to attempt to interview them as part of a news story.
TL;DR version: this person has no expectation of privacy thanks to a news event they helped create. If you want privacy, don't do shit like this or at least be better at hiding who the fuck you are.
Missing the point (Score:3)
This happens over and over. Trump does something absolutely reprehensible and indefensible, but one of the accusers did something slightly wrong, and Trump and all his lackeys start obsessing over the minor misdeed so that people stop talking about Trump's problem.
Trump spends months going after Muslims and Mexicans and is greeted with joy by white supremacists. Then Clinton (fairly accurately) calls about half of his supporters deplorable and gets pilloried by the right for stereotyping.
Trump is accused of multiple sexual assaults and rapes, so starts talking about Clinton's husband's misdeeds.
Comey testifies how Trump tried to extract a loyalty pledge from him and asked him to stop investigating Flynn, so Trump and allies start talking about the non-issue of Comey leaking his own private memos to a newspaper.
Now Trump is again caught repeating stuff that originated with racists, and so obligingly everyone is throwing up the smokescreen of the circumstances under which the racist apologized.
It doesn't matter.
Trump, once again, is repeating information that started out with some pretty reprehensible racists. If your buddy starts repeating a bunch of Hitler quotes your response shouldn't be "well he's not repeating the nasty stuff about Jews so I guess it's fine", you should be "WFT? Has he been talking to NAZIs? What's he got into his head that he's smart enough not to repeat to me?!?"
If you're an American then far-right extremists are among your President's biggest influences, this is the thing that should concern you.
Re:Repost meme (Score:4, Informative)
He/She created the video. Didn't just repost it.
Re:Repost meme (Score:4, Insightful)
Exercise free speech in an unpopular way, media outlet threatens to dox you.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
cry fowl
What's the matter, too chicken to take the heat?
Re:Repost meme (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that's hypocrisy.
The bill of rights does not give anyone any rights. The right to say whatever the fuck you want is a natural "god-given" right. The 1st amendment is a promise (often broken) by the federal government not to take away or limit that right.
Re:Repost meme (Score:4, Insightful)
What? Of course I argue against human rights as an inherent concept. It is something a society decides upon - nature doesn't care one bit.
Associate with a community know for doxxing (Score:2, Insightful)
Bitch about being doxxed
Remember kids, it's only bad if your opponent does it
Blackmail != Bullying (Score:5, Insightful)
It's funny how when the bully's get bullied back, they suddenly don't like it.
This isn't bullying it is blackmail which in many countries is an actual crime. Had CNN just revealed his name as part of a news story you could classify that as bullying (mess with us and suffer the consequences). Where they crossed the line, and arguably committed a crime, is when they threatened to do this unless he continues to do what they want.
Re:Blackmail != Bullying (Score:5, Insightful)
What CNN did actually do: they tracked down an internet poster, and then called him for a statement. They could have just published his name without calling him first, but that's irresponsible journalism. They could have ignored his request not to be identified, which... I guess they should have done, as heartless as it may be. They're getting a lot of shit for their compassion right now.
Re:Blackmail != Bullying (Score:5, Insightful)
What CNN did actually do: they tracked down an internet poster, and then called him for a statement. They could have just published his name without calling him first, but that's irresponsible journalism.
I'm not sure what was leading up to that was "responsible journalism" either. I mean, tracking down an internet poster of a meme? That's tabloid-level shit.
I get Trump posted the meme, and that's news. But the news is that Trump posted the meme, who the fuck cares who made it? And if it's relevant that whoever made it is a racist anti-Semite because Trump follows those types of people, the news would be that Trump is following racist anti-Semites. The dude himself isn't a public figure, he's some guy trolling on Reddit. How would you like it if Fox News tracked down the source of some anti-Trump meme that a prominent Democrat retweeted, discovered the same guy also posted some "antifa" stuff that encouraged violence, then agreed to refrain from revealing his identity only if he agrees never to do it again?
I'm not defending Trump here. Posting shitty memes should be below the dignity of his office. Every time I think he can't sink any lower, he somehow manages, on a daily basis at that. But thanks to CNN, instead of having a real discussion about this, now we have to admit the Trump followers talking about bad behavior from the mainstream media actually have a point, in this one instance. This was below the dignity of a respectable news organization.
They could have ignored his request not to be identified, which... I guess they should have done, as heartless as it may be. They're getting a lot of shit for their compassion right now.
You're ignoring their option to simply respect his request without conditions. How exactly does revealing his identity serve the public interest?
Again, that's assuming there even was a story which was worth tracking the guy down for in the first place, and I don't think there was.
Re: (Score:3)
Think about what you're saying here though. You're saying that what the President of the United States says to the public is not only not worth reporting on, but that it lessens a news organization for doing so. It is not the role of the press to ignore politicians and let them do whatever they want, or say whatever they want. This i
Re:Blackmail != Bullying (Score:4, Interesting)
Think about what you're saying here though. You're saying that what the President of the United States says to the public is not only not worth reporting on, but that it lessens a news organization for doing so.
I think if you read my post again, you'll see that I said precisely the opposite.
What I said is that what the President of the United States says to the public is very much reporting on. What some Reddit troll who never had direct contact with the President does is not. And that by going after the Reddit troll, CNN managed to take the spotlight away from the Trump's behavior, distracting us from what really does matter with their own bad behavior.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How is his identity news? Does the public have any business knowing who made a GIF?
Their first mistake was tracking him down.
Their second mistake was not immediately dropping it when he turned out to be some random nobody.
Their third mistake was contacting him.
And it gets worse from there.
Is CNN a news organization? None of this is news gathering or news reporting.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
CNN is not demanding money or property.
So when someone simply is threatening to "out" someone (e.g., drug habit, sexual-orientation/perversion, infidelity) unless they do something specific, that isn't a crime/blackmail?
Hmm, interesting take on the law...
So if a pimp does this to a prostitute, but doesn't demand money or property from said prostitute, that is okay? How about someone requiring a congressperson/senator to vote a specific way? Or a mobster wanting a member of the police or bureaucracy to look the other way when enforcing a law/ru
Re:Repost meme (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship is something that the government practices. This, if it's anything is blackmail.
Re:CNN is ISIS (Score:5, Informative)
CNN said that they tried to contact him first then he put up his apology the next day.
The apology came after CNN's KFile identified the man behind "HanA**holeSolo." Using identifying information that "HanA**holeSolo" posted on Reddit, KFile was able to determine key biographical details, to find the man's name using a Facebook search and ultimately corroborate details he had made available on Reddit.
On Monday, KFile attempted to contact the man by email and phone but he did not respond. On Tuesday, "HanA**holeSolo" posted his apology on the subreddit /The_Donald and deleted all of his other posts.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html
Where is CNN saying that "he called them to apologize first?" Even your own link has CNN saying that they attempted to contact him first. You make it seem like CNN is saying the guy called them up out of the blue to apologize but that's not what CNN is saying.
Re:CNN is ISIS (Score:5, Insightful)
And another view is that CNN pursued a mater of public interest (the video) discovered the originator, investigated their history and found out they routinely posted anti-Semitic and racist posts, discovered who that person was and contacted them for comment. Even 1 year ago they would have published his name without a second thought (just like Fox News or any other publication).
The guy then contacted CNN and convinced them to withhold his name, they did so but noted that if he continued to be a story of interest due to his postings that they wouldn't withold his name again. There is nothing untoward about that, would you have felt better if they just named him without a second thought like they and everyone else would have even a year ago?
I'm just happy we made some progress and they didn't name him straight away. Personally I'm torn about this, I believe people who post stuff like that should be outed to their family and friends so that the people they associate with can know what that person really thinks. But at the same time I don't think people should lose jobs over stuff posted on the internet and I don't believe anyone needs to be national news for views like that.
Re:CNN is ISIS (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't make racist or anti-Semitic comments when I'm "blowing off steam" or for the "lulz", I don't belittle people to make myself feel better. If you do this you should be perfectly happy with your friends, neighbors and family members finding out you do it. If you are embarrassed or ashamed for doing this shit then you KNOW what you are doing is wrong.
I'm not ashamed or afraid of anything I've posted becoming attached to my real name, are you? If you are you should grow the fuck up and stop being an asshole.
Re: (Score:3)
I know this isn't the most trustworthy news source, but here it is [cnn.com]:
Re: (Score:3)
Has anyone ever bothered to count the number of caricature troll videos, gifs, and pictures that troll political leaders such as GWB, Obama, Clinton, and yes Trump?
None of them have ever previously had their work endorsed by the president himself. This is nothing to do with some random on the internet mocking CNN. In fact the video could be seen just as easily to be mocking Trump, if not for the context of who retweeted it.
It's the fact that the president endorsed it, and by implication appearing to condone violence against journalists, that made this newsworthy. The creator of the video, along with anti-semitic and other comments, is now irrevocably linked to the sto
Re: (Score:3)
By CNN's own description of the timeline [cnn.com] the apology came AFTER they attempted to contact him several times, including directly by phone.
There was no question that at the time of the apology he knew CNN knew his identity.
Re: (Score:3)
Assange exposes "public servants" who should be accountable to us, not private citizens goofing around on the web.
Re: (Score:3)
Accusing CNN of fraudulent news is the exact definition of slander, or libel if you prefer. It is directly damaging to the company to be accused of not truthfully doing the job for which they charge.
Definition of slander
make false and damaging statements about (someone).
"they were accused of slandering the head of state"
What did you think it meant?
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, even for a trumpanzee you are bottom of the barrel uneducated. Do you know what the moral of the Caesar play is? That political murder never brings about the change you want to see. The play tells you that you shouldn't murder Trump because that will only make things worse (in this case hasten the demise of Rome).
Kathy Griffin got fired for that sketch, so clearly it wasn't OK. Did you not read the followup on that story?
You picked the two dumbest examples possible, both showing the opposite of what yo