Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

12467…12

Comments

  • #152
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,516 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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.


  • #153
    Ninjavampire
    Registered Users Posts: 130 ✭✭Ninjavampire


    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.


  • #154
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    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.


  • #155
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    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.


  • #156
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    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


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,516 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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?


  • #158
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    ohnonotgmail wrote:
    well if he breaks the agreement he made why cant CNN?


    Because it's blackmail, not an agreement


  • #159
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,516 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Mr.H wrote: »
    Because it's blackmail, not an agreement


    he went to CNN. CNN didnt go to him.


  • #160
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    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.


  • #161
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,516 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    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.


  • #163
    Carry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,024 ✭✭✭Carry


    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.


  • #164
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,516 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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.


  • #165
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    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


  • #166
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    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.


  • #167
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,516 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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?


  • #168
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,516 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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?


  • #169
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    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.


  • #170
    listermint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,106 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    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 ?


  • #171
    lifeandtimes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭lifeandtimes


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    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


  • #173
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,516 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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.


  • #174
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    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.


  • #175
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    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?


  • #176
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,516 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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.


  • #177
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    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?


  • #178
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,516 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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.


  • #179
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    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.


  • #180
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    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


  • #182
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭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 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: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭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: 14,345 ✭✭✭✭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: 9,605 ✭✭✭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: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭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: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭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: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭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: 40,516 ✭✭✭✭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 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: 40,516 ✭✭✭✭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: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭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
Advertisement