CNN tracks down random reddit meme poster and threatens to release his information

ohnonotgmail · 05-07-2017 11:51AM

biko wrote: »

That's what I read on reddit, of course we could be wrong.
I suppose we'll just have to wait for CNN to publish his name and age...

and i took that from one of his own posts on Reddit.

Ninjavampire · 05-07-2017 11:51AM

I dont understand the outrage. This guy made a stupid, non-important meme, until Trump threw him into the spotlight. Trump endorsed this guy and CNN found evidence he was a racist troll. They didnt release his name but could have if they wanted to.

hatrickpatrick · 05-07-2017 11:52AM

Ninjavampire wrote: »

I dont understand the outrage. This guy made a stupid, non-important meme, until Trump threw him into the spotlight. Trump endorsed this guy and CNN found evidence he was a racist troll. They didnt release his name but could have if they wanted to.

And they told him that they would, unless he did what he was told. That's the issue. It's called blackmail at that stage.

Hank Scorpio · 05-07-2017 11:52AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

do you think trump gives a monkey about this guy except for his value as a propaganda tool?

It makes Trump look wreckless { not hard } and he'll be hesitant to do it again in the future.

Have to side with the above poster about CNN's intentions.

Mr.H · 05-07-2017 12:03PM

ohnonotgmail wrote:

CNN made an agreement with him not to release his name in return for him stopping being a little racist troll. He agreed to this. there is no threat in the twitter post from CNN.

Really? What about the part where they retain the ability to release his details in the future if they see fit?

It's intimidation

ohnonotgmail · 05-07-2017 12:04PM

Mr.H wrote: »

Really? What about the part where they retain the ability to release his details in the future if they see fit?

It's intimidation

well if he breaks the agreement he made why cant CNN?

Mr.H · 05-07-2017 12:05PM

ohnonotgmail wrote:

well if he breaks the agreement he made why cant CNN?

Because it's blackmail, not an agreement

ohnonotgmail · 05-07-2017 12:06PM

Mr.H wrote: »

Because it's blackmail, not an agreement

he went to CNN. CNN didnt go to him.

hatrickpatrick · 05-07-2017 12:06PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well if he breaks the agreement he made why cant CNN?

Proposing an agreement such as this is in and of itself a form of censorship. Any demand for somebody not to speak, in any context, or suffer consequences of any kind, is censorship.

ohnonotgmail · 05-07-2017 12:08PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Proposing an agreement such as this is in and of itself a form of censorship. Any demand for somebody not to speak, in any context, or suffer consequences of any kind, is censorship.

he hasnt been asked to not speak in any context. You also have no way of knowing that it was CNN who proposed the agreement. He went to CNN, CNN didnt go to him.

Frankly i think they should just name him and let the world know what a little **** he is.

hatrickpatrick · 05-07-2017 12:10PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

he hasnt been asked to not speak in any context.

He has been. They have told him to cease his current behaviour or else be doxxed.

Frankly i think they should just name him and let the world know what a little **** he is.

I agree. If there was nothing transactional or conditional about it, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Carry · 05-07-2017 12:10PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Is Julian Assange alt right or anyone who's said CNN overstepped the mark?

dodging much? :rolleyes:

Diversion tactics are not working with me. I was talking about you and the likes of you on boards, not Assange.

ohnonotgmail · 05-07-2017 12:10PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

He has been. They have told him to cease his current behaviour or else be doxxed.

I agree. If there was nothing transactional or conditional about it, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

his current behaviour. not any context.

Mr.H · 05-07-2017 12:14PM

ohnonotgmail wrote:

he went to CNN. CNN didnt go to him.

After they threatened him

If I kidnap someone and their loved ones get in touch with me first, it doesn't mean I didn't commit a crime.

CNN committed a crime by intimidating a private citizen into making a deal. This is also blackmail.

Then there is the laughable issue where people accuse trump of propaganda when CNN are trying to influence media by making false accusations on Russia and blackmailing civilians (albeit scumbags) into not making public statements that mock them.

Then there is the fake news crap. We had every anti trump campaigner laughing at trumps claims that fake news exists only to then forget that and pretend that trump is making up fake news when people have been fired for making up Russia stories and Russian stories being debunked.

I mean FFS seriously if this was the other way around you people would be outraged that a huge corporation with such influence is targeting a nobody.

Then again you only see what you wanna believe

hatrickpatrick · 05-07-2017 12:15PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

his current behaviour. not any context.

I think you misread my original argument - "in any context" referred to asking somebody not to speak, not to his speech. In other words, asking somebody not to speak or to modify / censor their speech, and threatening any form of consequences if they do, is censorship - regardless of the context. That's what I was saying. The context doesn't matter. They told him to stop and threatened consequences if he didn't - censorship, end of story.

ohnonotgmail · 05-07-2017 12:17PM

Mr.H wrote: »

After they threatened him

If I kidnap someone and their loved ones get in touch with me first, it doesn't mean I didn't commit a crime.

CNN committed a crime by intimidating a private citizen into making a deal. This is also blackmail.

Then there is the laughable issue where people accuse trump of propaganda when CNN are trying to influence media by making false accusations on Russia and blackmailing civilians (albeit scumbags) into not making public statements that mock them.

Then there is the fake news crap. We had every anti trump campaigner laughing at trumps claims that fake news exists only to then forget that and pretend that trump is making up fake news when people have been fired for making up Russia stories and Russian stories being debunked.

I mean FFS seriously if this was the other way around you people would be outraged that a huge corporation with such influence is targeting a nobody.

Then again you only see what you wanna believe

when did they threaten him?

ohnonotgmail · 05-07-2017 12:17PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I think you misread my original argument - "in any context" referred to asking somebody not to speak, not to his speech. In other words, asking somebody not to speak or to modify / censor their speech, and threatening any form of consequences if they do, is censorship - regardless of the context. That's what I was saying. The context doesn't matter. They told him to stop and threatened consequences if he didn't - censorship, end of story.

you really havent read the cnn statement have you?

hatrickpatrick · 05-07-2017 12:18PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you really havent read the cnn statement have you?

“CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change,”

That is a threat of consequences for certain actions. There is no other way to read that sentence.

listermint · 05-07-2017 12:20PM

Hilarious that these same folks are ok with trump appointing Ajit Pai, an enemy of net neutrality and will do their utmost to defend Trump.

Its almost like they cant see the forest for the trees.

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Trumps out there hacking at their ankles meanwhile the are waving trump flags and wearing red hats.

Laughable stuff, how you you circle that one @Hank ?

lifeandtimes · 05-07-2017 12:23PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Proposing an agreement such as this is in and of itself a form of censorship. Any demand for somebody not to speak, in any context, or suffer consequences of any kind, is censorship.

How is it any different to a gagging order?

Mr.H · 05-07-2017 12:24PM

ohnonotgmail wrote:

when did they threaten him?

Read the original post and maybe you'll find out.

CNN tried unsuccessfully to contact the man. He then called them back and begged them not to release his private information.

So your saying that he inferred by himself with any persuasion that they have his private info and might release it if he didn't do what they told him?

CNN threatened this guy

ohnonotgmail · 05-07-2017 12:25PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

“CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change,”

That is a threat of consequences for certain actions. There is no other way to read that sentence.

read all of it.

hatrickpatrick · 05-07-2017 12:25PM

lifeandtimes wrote: »

How is it any different to a gagging order?

I don't approve of those either, at all. But regardless, CNN has no judicial authority to issue anything like this, they're a private corporation.

hatrickpatrick · 05-07-2017 12:26PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

read all of it.

I have, what's your point? Are you denying that that sentence counts as coercive, or are you not? Straight question?

ohnonotgmail · 05-07-2017 12:26PM

Mr.H wrote: »

Read the original post and maybe you'll find out.

CNN tried unsuccessfully to contact the man. He then called them back and begged them not to release his private information.

So your saying that he inferred by himself with any persuasion that they have his private info and might release it if he didn't do what they told him?

CNN threatened this guy

he contacted them after already making a public apology. I'm sure he was afraid they would release his info (and they should have) so he made an agreement with them not to. Both sides gained from the agreement.

Mr.H · 05-07-2017 12:28PM

ohnonotgmail wrote:

you really havent read the cnn statement have you?

Obviously you haven't or at least your reading the intent of the words from your point of view rather than the actual facts.

Not to mention the fact they are one of the parties involved in the incident and their view will of course be tainted and biased.

They are hardly going to incriminate themselves

Or is it only trump supporters that must be held accountable?

ohnonotgmail · 05-07-2017 12:29PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't approve of those either, at all. But regardless, CNN has no judicial authority to issue anything like this, they're a private corporation.

as a private corporation they are entitled to make agreements with whoever they like.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I have, what's your point? Are you denying that that sentence counts as coercive, or are you not? Straight question?

it is really clear. they made an agreement with him. if HE breaks that agreement then that agreement is null and void. they made that agreement because he told them in good faith that he was sorry for the racist **** he has posted. If he then continues to post racist **** then he wasnt acting in good faith and CNN are no longer bound by the agreement.

hatrickpatrick · 05-07-2017 12:29PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

he contacted them after already making a public apology. I'm sure he was afraid they would release his info (and they should have) so he made an agreement with them not to. Both sides gained from the agreement.

And CNN shouldn't have accepted it. If the release was in the public interest, then release it. If not, then don't. Making it conditional on the future behaviour of one of the subjects is profoundly unjournalistic.

Mr.H · 05-07-2017 12:30PM

listermint wrote:

Hilarious that these same folks are ok with trump appointing Ajit Pai, an enemy of net neutrality and will do their utmost to defend Trump.

What's that gotta do with CNN breaking the law?

Mr.H · 05-07-2017 12:31PM

lifeandtimes wrote:

How is it any different to a gagging order?

One is legal and the other is taking the law into your own hands which is not pegal

CNN tracks down random reddit meme poster and threatens to release his information

Comments