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

Podge_irl · 06-07-2017 07:44PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is all a bit irrelevant though. It's not about whether it's ok for him to be silenced, it's specifically about a journalistic outfit engaging in silencing of that kind. Journalistic outfits should not engage in anything other than journalism and commentary. Trying to directly influence events in the world through choosing to release / not release information as a quid pro quo for somebody else doing something as requested is corruption.

You could equally argue that by journalistic merit alone they are well within their rights to just publish who the individual is but have chosen not to out of kindness rather than malice.

Their press release was poorly worded, though some of that is likely an attempt to make it legally sound.

InTheTrees · 06-07-2017 08:28PM

osarusan wrote: »

I wouldn't feel much sympathy for him because he's a scummy idiot but that doesn't mean CNN didn't do something wrong.

They didn't do anything wrong.

Otherwise the anti Semite guy would be suing them for all he could.

hatrickpatrick · 06-07-2017 08:39PM

Podge_irl wrote: »

You could equally argue that by journalistic merit alone they are well within their rights to just publish who the individual is but have chosen not to out of kindness rather than malice.

Their press release was poorly worded, though some of that is likely an attempt to make it legally sound.

I've said all along that I'd have no issue with them publishing it. My issue is with the explicit, conditional element of "we reserve the right to publish IF". That is not something any media outlet should ever do. The publication or non publication of an existing story should never be tied to the future behaviour of anyone involved in it.

InTheTrees · 06-07-2017 08:47PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I've said all along that I'd have no issue with them publishing it. My issue is with the explicit, conditional element of "we reserve the right to publish IF". That is not something any media outlet should ever do.

Have you ever heard of a "cease and desist" letter? Its very similar, but basically a threat.

A "media outlet" can defend itself like any other person or company.

Hank Scorpio · 06-07-2017 08:55PM

It's sad to see this thread descend into "The guy is racist, how dare you say he's not" deflection piss fest instead of the actual issue. CNN contacted a private citizen because he created an internet gif, then ran a story on him which said if he does something similar in the future, CNN has the right to release his name. Twist, dive, deceive, deflect, that in itself is immoral and CNN are acting like internet police. He could be the biggest serial killer in the world or be mother Theresa the second, the reasons for contacting him are highly immoral and the subtle threat is even more so. Go shovel your shíte about his posting history somewhere else. It's irrelevant.

Glenn Greenwald sums it up well.

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/05/cnn-anonymous-critic-trump-wrestling-gif-reddit-user/

...the invalidity of those particular accusations does not exonerate CNN. There is something self-evidently creepy, bullying, and heavy-handed about a large news organization publicly announcing that it will expose someone’s identity if he ever again publishes content on the internet that the network deems inappropriate or objectionable. Whether it was CNN’s intent or not, the article makes it appear as if CNN will be monitoring this citizen’s online writing, and will punish him with exposure if he writes something the network dislikes.

There is also something untoward about the fact that CNN — the subject of the original video — was the news outlet that uncovered his identity. That fact creates the appearance of vengeance: If you, even as a random and anonymous internet user, post content critical of CNN, then it will use its vast corporate resources to investigate you, uncover your identity, and threaten to expose you if you ever do so again...

...All of these claims are already included in this article, but note two key points: 1) While the Reddit user’s apology was posted before he spoke to any CNN reporter, he posted it after he was contacted by CNN, which means he knew when he publicly apologized that the network had unearthed his identity; and, more importantly, 2) CNN’s claim that it merely meant to convey “that there was no deal” is squarely at odds with what its article actually warned: “CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.”...

jackofalltrades · 06-07-2017 09:03PM

Billy86 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/882429541981052928

FYI "HanAssholeSolo" just called me."I am in total agreement with your statement. I was not threatened in anyway."

They could easily release a copy of all the communications they made to this individual to clarify the matter.

InTheTrees wrote: »

Sorry but some scummy idiot who goes after CNN and then gets exposed for it deserves little sympathy.

He made a short satirical video, how can that be considered "going after"?

If he feels so hard done by why doesn't he sue them?

The "if you don't like it then sue me" attitude doesn't take into account the cost of legal action.

Podge_irl wrote: »

You could equally argue that by journalistic merit alone they are well within their rights to just publish who the individual is but have chosen not to out of kindness rather than malice.

Why would they publish his details though?
He made a short video, they were obviously too thin skinned to take a joke.
After a bit of investigation found out that they could hurt his reputation and scared him in to making an apology.
It's the kind of behaviour I would expect of Putin or Edrogan, not from a supposed news organisation.
The video didn't merit any further investigation.

Uinseann_16 · 06-07-2017 10:06PM

Podge_irl wrote: »

You could equally argue that by journalistic merit alone they are well within their rights to just publish who the individual is but have chosen not to out of kindness rather than malice.

Their press release was poorly worded, though some of that is likely an attempt to make it legally sound.

No it was brought up there are multiple laws in the US against this

Billy86 · 06-07-2017 10:11PM

jackofalltrades wrote: »

They could easily release a copy of all the communications they made to this individual to clarify the matter.

And if they did, there would be uproar over that also. Likewise, if he legitimately was threatened, he could release it too (and could likely sue for millions).

jackofalltrades · 06-07-2017 10:48PM

Billy86 wrote: »

And if they did, there would be uproar over that also.

What uproar is this going to create?
CNN releasing the emails that they sent this person would help clarify the situation.

Likewise, if he legitimately was threatened, he could release it too (and could likely sue for millions).

I'm fairly sure the person involved is just hoping for this to blow over.
I doubt they're going to release anything with CNN's threat hanging over their head.
That and it's not easy and often expensive to sue companies.

Billy86 · 06-07-2017 10:51PM

jackofalltrades wrote: »

What uproar is this going to create?
CNN releasing the emails that they sent this person would help clarify the situation.

I'm fairly sure the person involved is just hoping for this to blow over.
I doubt they're going to release anything with CNN's threat hanging over their head.
That and it's not easy and often expensive to sue companies.

Releasing their correspondence with this guy having not agreed anything like that prior. It would be presenting the easiest of low hanging fruit.

If they have even half a decent case, they'll have plenty of lawyers who will take it on for the exposure (and a cut of winnings/settlement) I am sure.

hatrickpatrick · 06-07-2017 11:04PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

Have you ever heard of a "cease and desist" letter? Its very similar, but basically a threat.

A "media outlet" can defend itself like any other person or company.

I am aware of the concept of a cease and desist. It is a legal document which is enforced through legal action, not journalistic action. I have said all along that journalistic decisions should be based on, and only on, the public interest of certain information being published - they should never be based on eliciting promises of any kind from any person. That is not journalism.

Again, please at least try to take this to its conclusion before you dismiss it. Suppose the Irish Times has evidence that a high court judge has committed a crime, say drug dealing (arbitrary random hypothetical). Suppose that judge is about to rule in a tax evasion case against an Irish times staff member. Now suppose the Irish Times contacts him and says "Hey, we have this information on you, we're thinking about publishing it". Suppose the judge replies "Look please don't do that. I'll rule in your favour tomorrow in court as a gesture of goodwill here". Now suppose the Irish Times replies "Fair enough. But we reserve the right to publish in the future if you rule against us in this or any other case".

This is corruption on two levels - the first is that the Irish Times has perverted the course of justice, which is not at all relevant to the CNN case. However, the second is that whether or not the Irish Times will release information about a judge's crimes is *NOT* being decided purely based on journalistic values, but based on whether the judge behaves as the Irish Times has told him to.

I think we can all agree that this is wrong. Whether or not the public gets to find out that a judge has been committing serious crimes will not be based on the public interest, but purely on a transactional, quid-pro-quo, tit for tat arrangement between the judge and the journalist.

Does this not exemplify why ANY quid pro quo around whether an article gets published or not is a fundamentally dangerous precedent? Again, how can anyone differentiate between the cases purely based on the severity? Ethics doesn't work like that - an action itself is either right or wrong, it can't be less right or less wrong depending on the context. The action itself has an ethical status, and in journalism, basing editorial decisions on anything, literally anything, other than the public interest is automatically and irredeemably unethical.

CFlat · 07-07-2017 12:16AM

Another wall of text by HP. I'm not even going to read it.

Look, this is very simple, was a little scrot caught by the balls or not? Spare me the 'sticking it to The Man' crap. Sometimes the big boys get it right and in this case, they did.

The next time a little turd thinks about pressing the send button, he'll consider that someone may knock on his door after he does. CNN may have helped us cross the rubicon when it comes to degenerates posting vile comments on the net. I actually think it's a good day for democracy and free speech.

InTheTrees · 07-07-2017 12:29AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Again, please at least try to take this to its conclusion before you dismiss it. Suppose the Irish Times has evidence that a high court judge has committed a crime, say drug dealing (arbitrary random hypothetical). Suppose that judge is about to rule in a tax evasion case against an Irish times staff member. Now suppose the Irish Times contacts him and says "Hey, we have this information on you, we're thinking about publishing it". Suppose the judge replies "Look please don't do that. I'll rule in your favour tomorrow in court as a gesture of goodwill here". Now suppose the Irish Times replies "Fair enough. But we reserve the right to publish in the future if you rule against us in this or any other case".

Your focusing on CNN's reaction to being threatened and ignoring the initial threat. How do you think they should respond then?

The meme-guy acted multiple times to cause harm to CNN and individual employees of CNN.

CNN told him to stop or they would take action.

jackofalltrades · 07-07-2017 12:44AM

InTheTrees wrote: »

Your focusing on CNN's reaction to being threatened and ignoring the initial threat. How do you think they should respond then?

The meme-guy acted multiple times to cause harm to CNN and individual employees of CNN.

CNN told him to stop or they would take action.

How were CNN threatened or harmed?

InTheTrees · 07-07-2017 12:48AM

jackofalltrades wrote: »

How were CNN threatened or harmed?

The guy posted a picture of CNN employees identifying them as jewish.

Some would take that as a threat.

If I was a jewish employee of CNN I would be concerned.

wes · 07-07-2017 12:53AM

InTheTrees wrote: »

The guy posted a picture of CNN employees identifying them as jewish.

Some would take that as a threat.

If I was a jewish employee of CNN I would be concerned.

There receiving death threats:

Journalist Who Exposed The Racist Creator Of Trump’s CNN Tweet Gets Death Threats

A favored method of intimidation of the alt right trumpkins.

end of the road · 07-07-2017 01:11AM

CFlat wrote: »

Another wall of text by HP. I'm not even going to read it.

Look, this is very simple, was a little scrot caught by the balls or not? Spare me the 'sticking it to The Man' crap. Sometimes the big boys get it right and in this case, they did.

The next time a little turd thinks about pressing the send button, he'll consider that someone may knock on his door after he does. CNN may have helped us cross the rubicon when it comes to degenerates posting vile comments on the net. I actually think it's a good day for democracy and free speech.

claptrap. this is about as undemocratic as it gets. a media organisation does not get to threaten anyone. end of.
what he posted does not excuse cnn's actions. if he had posted something illegal, it's up to the authorities to deal with it. him posting something moraly wrong is for an individual to say it's wrong, not for a media organisation to threaten to publically reveal his details and the possible threat to public safety that may go with it. this social media witch hunt gunk has no place.

InTheTrees wrote: »

The guy posted a picture of CNN employees identifying them as jewish.

Some would take that as a threat.

If I was a jewish employee of CNN I would be concerned.

go to the authorities then.

InTheTrees · 07-07-2017 01:26AM

end of the road wrote: »

go to the authorities then.

Er...yes. I'm sure they have.

This thread is about the outrage that they didnt expose the guy on tv.

hatrickpatrick · 07-07-2017 02:06AM

InTheTrees wrote: »

Your focusing on CNN's reaction to being threatened and ignoring the initial threat. How do you think they should respond then?

The meme-guy acted multiple times to cause harm to CNN and individual employees of CNN.

CNN told him to stop or they would take action.

Firstly, I don't see what he did as an overt threat. But even if it was, the correct response would have been to forward those threats, along with his real identity once obtained, to the authorities. And then, as I said, either publish them or not, based upon - and only upon - whether CNN felt that the public had a need or an interest in knowing who this guy was. Not based upon what he might or might not do next week, or the week after that.

FatherTed · 07-07-2017 03:49AM

I have no problem with CNN going after him. Don't do the shyt if you can't stand the heat.
Everybody is ignoring the fact that we wouldn't talking about this if that idiot in the White House hadn't posted it. Imagine if Obama had done something like that, the outcry from the right would be deafening.
Also, I'm sure if someone had posted a meme of CNN bashing the orangehead, the right wing snowflakes would be crying about it demanding death.

Richard Hillman · 07-07-2017 05:59AM

FatherTed wrote: »

I have no problem with CNN going after him. Don't do the shyt if you can't stand the heat.
Everybody is ignoring the fact that we wouldn't talking about this if that idiot in the White House hadn't posted it. Imagine if Obama had done something like that, the outcry from the right would be deafening.
Also, I'm sure if someone had posted a meme of CNN bashing the orangehead, the right wing snowflakes would be crying about it demanding death.

Your post is deranged on every sentence bar the first, which is just opinion. The rest is fictional, with no logic.

Hank Scorpio · 07-07-2017 06:04AM

CFlat wrote: »

CNN may have helped us cross the rubicon when it comes to degenerates posting vile comments on the net.

Do you even internet?

marcus001 · 07-07-2017 07:13AM

Billy86 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/882429541981052928

FYI "HanAssholeSolo" just called me."I am in total agreement with your statement. I was not threatened in anyway."

That sounds like something a hostage would read in front of a camera.

marcus001 · 07-07-2017 07:24AM

I notice that all of the people who are saying things like "you can't post whatever you like on the internet and expect anonymity" are all using pseudonyms to post here.

marcus001 · 07-07-2017 07:27AM

Billy86 wrote: »

And if they did, there would be uproar over that also. Likewise, if he legitimately was threatened, he could release it too (and could likely sue for millions).

He couldn't sue and protect his anonymity so that's a moot point.

Hank Scorpio · 07-07-2017 07:36AM

marcus001 wrote: »

I notice that all of the people who are saying things like "you can't post whatever you like on the internet and expect anonymity" are all using pseudonyms to post here.

Post wins thread.

InTheTrees · 07-07-2017 07:48AM

marcus001 wrote: »

I notice that all of the people who are saying things like "you can't post whatever you like on the internet and expect anonymity" are all using pseudonyms to post here.

That's not quite accurate its actually its more like "you can't have a history of posting racist violent threats on the internet and hope to remain anonymous".

marcus001 · 07-07-2017 07:54AM

InTheTrees wrote: »

That's not quite accurate its actually its more like "you can't have a history of posting racist violent threats on the internet and hope to remain anonymous".

Yes but this particular story reads more like "the weak should fear the strong"

y0ssar1an22 · 07-07-2017 08:28AM

seamus wrote: »

Funny how racists always start crying when people might find out they're racists. It's almost like it's not OK.

Anyway, this is very far from doxxing. He's not being extorted or blackmailed or threatened. If anything they're protecting him by giving him the opportunity to go quietly into the night. Breitbart or the Daily Mail would just publish.

They also didn't say that they would release his information if he did anything else. The provided a rider for legal purposes which maintains their right to publish this information in the future.

Podge_irl · 07-07-2017 08:39AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I've said all along that I'd have no issue with them publishing it. My issue is with the explicit, conditional element of "we reserve the right to publish IF". That is not something any media outlet should ever do. The publication or non publication of an existing story should never be tied to the future behaviour of anyone involved in it.

It sounds like standard legalese to me. In this context it comes across poorly I will admit.

Uinseann_16 wrote: »

No it was brought up there are multiple laws in the US against this

Against releasing his info or against threatening him? The threat is purely perception based. Again, it comes across as crass in this scenario but also seems like a normal enough legal disclaimer.

I think they would have been better off ignoring the whole bloody thing but the reaction to it is unwarranted.

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

Comments