Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

1…457910…19

Comments

  • #182
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    as a private corporation they are entitled to make agreements with whoever they like.

    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.

    And they shouldn't have. It's not a journalist's or media organisation's place to trade favours or engage in transactional arrangements regarding the circumstances of publishing information of any kind, for any reason. Ever.

    Let's put this in an Irish context. Suppose RTE had some dirt on Leo Varadkar. Now supposing he told them that he would increase their license fee in the next budget if they withheld that information from the public. Suppose they responded by saying "fine, but if we don't get our increase on budget day, we f*ck you over".

    Would you regard that as acceptable?

    The media should never, and I mean never, seek to directly influence somebody's behaviour through the threat of releasing information if that person does not behave as the media wants them to.


  • #183
    lifeandtimes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭lifeandtimes


    Mr.H wrote: »
    One is legal and the other is taking the law into your own hands which is not pegal

    To be fair this is an agreement between to parties,he didn't have to make the agreement and felt if he was being blackmailed he could have contacted the policy and brought it legal.

    I assume CNN put it by their legal team as it's so high profile to make sure they wouldn't get screwed.

    Therefore nothing illegal done.


  • #184
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    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.


    Apologise for this post or I'll release your name phone jumper and address.........

    Sure you'll gain from the agreement so it's not a threat nor is it intimation.

    Surely you see the point people are making even if you don't agree (publicly)


  • #185
    Ninjavampire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 130 ✭✭Ninjavampire


    Trump fans are masters of compartmentalising. Outraged when Stephen Colbert makes a joke about their God Emperor on a comedy show but never batting an eye when Trump goes after women, immigrants, families of dead soldiers, disabled reporters, the press, the list goes on. Like his supporters, Trump can dole it out but turns into a blubbering baby when he feels on the defensive.

    It's clear a lot of the outrage in this situation comes from other racist the_Donald users who are scared their hate speech could be exposed. CNN are well within their rights to do investigative journalism to find out which content creator the president is tweeting and endorsing.

    Also, the fact that Trump is in anyway connected or exposed to the **** on the_D is scary stuff. He should be actively denouncing them, not giving them attention.


  • #186
    lifeandtimes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭lifeandtimes


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    And they shouldn't have. It's not a journalist's or media organisation's place to trade favours or engage in transactional arrangements regarding the circumstances of publishing information of any kind, for any reason. Ever.

    Let's put this in an Irish context. Suppose RTE had some dirt on Leo Varadkar. Now supposing he told them that he would increase their license fee in the next budget if they withheld that information from the public. Suppose they responded by saying "fine, but if we don't get our increase on budget day, we f*ck you over".

    Would you regard that as acceptable?

    The media should never, and I mean never, seek to directly influence somebody's behaviour through the threat of releasing information if that person does not behave as the media wants them to.

    CNN do not make any gain,financial or otherwise with this agreement so your point is invalid


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    lifeandtimes wrote: »
    CNN do not make any gain,financial or otherwise with this agreement so your point is invalid

    They achieved a change in a person's behaviour, in exchange for not releasing information. That is unethical and unjournalistic. There is absolutely no other way to spin this.


  • #188
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    lifeandtimes wrote:
    To be fair this is an agreement between to parties,he didn't have to make the agreement and felt if he was being blackmailed he could have contacted the policy and brought it legal.


    And if he did that his private details would be released which means CNN would win. Plus their expensive lawyers against him.....


  • #189
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,371 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    I don't know what the fuss is about. There is no expectation or right of privacy on the internet. It's not a confidential phone service. If you troll and your identity is found out then accept the consequences

    Freedom of speech does not necessarily imply freedom to hide under a stone throwing mud.


  • #190
    gctest50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,534 ✭✭✭gctest50


    lifeandtimes wrote: »
    CNN do not make any gain,financial or otherwise with this agreement so your point is invalid

    It's coercion, bit of conspiring too


  • #191
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Mr.H wrote: »
    And if he did that his private details would be released which means CNN would win. Plus their expensive lawyers against him.....
    Actually you have no proof of that.

    He voluntarily contacted CNN, confirmed his own personal details and apologised.

    There doesn't appear to have been any apology under duress or blackmail.

    That's all been made up.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    lifeandtimes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭lifeandtimes


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    They achieved a change in a person's behaviour, in exchange for not releasing information. That is unethical and unjournalistic. There is absolutely no other way to spin this.

    Isn't that what prison and rehab is for to change people's behaviour?

    This persona behaviour was vile and disgusting, they made an agreement with him that he won't do it again,just like any parent or person of authority does. He doesn't have to abide by it but will have to suffer consequences for his actions,regardless of freedom of speech or not


  • #193
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    jimmycrackcorm wrote: »
    I don't know what the fuss is about. There is no expectation or right of privacy on the internet. It's not a confidential phone service. If you troll and your identity is found out then accept the consequences

    Freedom of speech does not necessarily imply freedom to hide under a stone throwing mud.
    One could argue that someone is only entitled to freedom of speech if they are willing to own their words.

    If you cannot stand behind your speech, you do not deserve the right to say it.


  • #194
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    His info would have been public domain through the courts

    Your basing your views on a statement from the alleged guilty party.........

    This conversation has run its course for me.

    We all know who are in the wrong despite the victim blaming


  • #195
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    jimmycrackcorm wrote: »
    I don't know what the fuss is about. There is no expectation or right of privacy on the internet. It's not a confidential phone service. If you troll and your identity is found out then accept the consequences

    Freedom of speech does not necessarily imply freedom to hide under a stone throwing mud.

    I agree. As I've said repeatedly, had CNN merely released the person's information, I wouldn't be bashing them for it.

    The issue is with the transactional principle of "we, journalists, will refrain from releasing information we have... If you do what we tell you". That is an extraordinarily dangerous an unethical precedent. Just think it through to its conclusion. "Minister, we, journalists, will not public information about your affair - IF you increase the state subvention to Irish Rail". "Officer, we, journalists, will not publish private information about you - if you agree not to continue investigating our organisation for systemic discrimination". "Father, we, journalists, will not expose the fact that you are an alleged pluralist - IF you agree to stop telling your congregation that our TV channel is ungodly in your weekly sermons".

    The possibilities are endless here but the conclusion is the same - the media should never make the release or withholding of information conditional upon the future behaviour of the subject of that information - in any context, ever. Simple as.


  • #196
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,316 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Mr.H wrote: »
    Apologise for this post or I'll release your name phone jumper and address.........

    Sure you'll gain from the agreement so it's not a threat nor is it intimation.

    Surely you see the point people are making even if you don't agree (publicly)


    he apologised before contacting CNN.


  • #197
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    lifeandtimes wrote:
    This persona behaviour was vile and disgusting, they made an agreement with him that he won't do it again,just like any parent or person of authority does. He doesn't have to abide by it but will have to suffer consequences for his actions,regardless of freedom of speech or not


    They broke the law

    he didnt


  • #198
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    ohnonotgmail wrote:
    he apologised before contacting CNN.


    Do you think he was in fear before he apologized?


  • #199
    Ninjavampire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 130 ✭✭Ninjavampire


    Mr.H wrote: »
    His info would have been public domain through the courts

    Your basing your views on a statement from the alleged guilty party.........

    This conversation has run its course for me.

    We all know who are in the wrong despite the victim blaming

    Well we can probably be in agreement that the victim in this scenario is not the troll who condoned genoside and racial violence!


  • #200
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,316 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Mr.H wrote: »
    Do you think he was in fear before he apologized?


    in fear of being exposed as a racist troll? I love how the racist troll is being portrayed as the victim here.


  • #201
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    lifeandtimes wrote: »
    Isn't that what prison and rehab is for to change people's behaviour?

    Prison is state mandated and is only relevant where the law is broken, not merely when somebody's behaviour is distasteful but legal. Rehab is something a person enters into of their own free will, or as above, because they have violated the law and a court has ordered them to.
    This persona behaviour was vile and disgusting, they made an agreement with him that he won't do it again, just like any parent or person of authority does. He doesn't have to abide by it but will have to suffer consequences for his actions,regardless of freedom of speech or not

    Bolded part is key. The media is not, and should never, ever be considered, a 'person of authority'. Their function is to report, not to directly tell anybody what to do.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    ohnonotgmail wrote:
    in fear of being exposed as a racist troll? I love how the racist troll is being portrayed as the victim here.

    Ninjavampire wrote:
    Well we can probably be in agreement that the victim in this scenario is not the troll who condoned genoside and racial violence!

    The troll might have been scum

    But he was the victim here

    Both of you are condoning threatening and intimidating people so who are you to judge anyone?


  • #203
    Ninjavampire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 130 ✭✭Ninjavampire


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Prison is state mandated and is only relevant where the law is broken, not merely when somebody's behaviour is distasteful but legal. Rehab is something a person enters into of their own free will, or as above, because they have violated the law and a court has ordered them to.



    Bolded part is key. The media is not, and should never, ever be considered, a 'person of authority'. Their function is to report, not to directly tell anybody what to do.

    Why shouldn't they report this guys name then? Does he have a right to be an anonymous troll spouting out hate speech?


  • #204
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    hatrickpatrick wrote:
    Bolded part is key. The media is not, and should never, ever be considered, a 'person of authority'. Their function is to report, not to directly tell anybody what to do.


    This

    And should be added that they are suppose to be impartial


  • #205
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,316 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Mr.H wrote: »
    The troll might have been scum

    But he was the victim here

    Both of you are condoning threatening and intimidating people so who are you to judge anyone?


    the threatening and intimidation is only your "interpretation" of what happened. you cannot substantiate it.


  • #206
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Ninjavampire wrote: »
    Why shouldn't they report this guys name then? Does he have a right to be an anonymous troll spouting out hate speech?

    I've said about a thousand times in this thread that they should have published his name. Publishing his name is not the problem. Offering not to do so in exchange for certain behaviour is the problem.


  • #207
    Ninjavampire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 130 ✭✭Ninjavampire


    Mr.H wrote: »
    The troll might have been scum

    But he was the victim here

    Both of you are condoning threatening and intimidating people so who are you to judge anyone?

    I don't think it is a threat. I think they are well within their rights to publish this guys name as a person who was de facto endorsed by the president.


  • #208
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    Ninjavampire wrote:
    Why shouldn't they report this guys name then? Does he have a right to be an anonymous troll spouting out hate speech?


    Nobody should spout hate speech but again if they had a problem they should report them to the authorities.

    They took the law into their own hands and deserve to be ridiculed for it


  • #209
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    ohnonotgmail wrote:
    the threatening and intimidation is only your "interpretation" of what happened. you cannot substantiate it.

    Except they admitted it in their own statement........

    They even threatened him in their statement ffs


  • #210
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Ninjavampire wrote: »
    I don't think it is a threat. I think they are well within their rights to publish this guys name as a person who was de facto endorsed by the president.

    I agree. Engaging in a transactional agreement over the publication of information is an entirely different beast, and it is not something that any journalist, ever, should do. In any context, whatsoever. It's very black and white from where I'm sitting - a journalist should never use information that they have, and the possibility of publishing it, to extract literally anything from any person - favours, behaviour, comments, anything. Publishing it is fine. Not publishing it is fine. Publishing it if, and only if, a person doesn't behave the way the journalist wants them to behave - that is unjournalistic and unethical.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    Ninjavampire wrote:
    I don't think it is a threat. I think they are well within their rights to publish this guys name as a person who was de facto endorsed by the president.


    No they're not within their right

    Endorsed by the president........ wow

    He retweeted it..........


Advertisement
Advertisement