CNN threatens to dox creator of Trump meme

[Tydrane]

So saying they might do something in the future, when all they actually did was the right thing, was the ethical problem you can't let go? The fact that their actual actions were entirely correct is just left by the wayside by you?

Of course the caveat exists - but you're making the entire incident only about the caveat. In your mind, CNN doing the right thing doesn't exist - and only something they didn't actually do does.

I'm not sure how many times we're going to have to explain it to you, but we'll keep going until you get it.

1. What CNN did was right and good and ethical.
2. What CNN said they might do in the future is almost irrelevant - because they didn't do it.

I don't think you understand how problematic the caveat is. Yes, CNN did the right thing in not posting the guy's details, though their justification for having done so (fear for his safety) is laughably specious, because it is dramatically out of character with their conduct in the rest of this saga. But I digress.

"The caveat" is a problem because the most reasonable and logical conclusion one comes to from having read it is that if HanAssholeSolo posts anything that CNN doesn't like (under their foolishly broad, ambiguous definition), they will decide whether or not to release his details to the public. This is problematic because, as this has become such an inflammatory subject, doing so can reasonably and logically be expected to incur negative consequences for HanAssholeSolo. Put simply, you can't do that, you can't threaten to hold something over someone's head ad infinitum in order to police their behaviour, when that something could damage the person concerned. That is coercion, and in the US it is a federal crime.

Youre saying we focus on something they didn't do - that is incorrect. What we focus on is that this caveat amounts to a criminal threat. That is what they did do.

[cubby]

I don't think you understand how problematic the caveat is. Yes, CNN did the right thing in not posting the guy's details, though their justification for having done so (fear for his safety) is laughably specious, because it is dramatically out of character with their conduct in the rest of this saga. But I digress.

"The caveat" is a problem because the most reasonable and logical conclusion one comes to from having read it is that if HanAssholeSolo posts anything that CNN doesn't like (under their foolishly broad, ambiguous definition), they will decide whether or not to release his details to the public. This is problematic because, as this has become such an inflammatory subject, doing so can reasonably and logically be expected to incur negative consequences for HanAssholeSolo. Put simply, you can't do that, you can't threaten to hold something over someone's head ad infinitum, in order to police their behaviour, when that something could damage the person concerned. That is coercion, and in the US it is a federal crime.

Youre saying we focus on something they didn't do - that is incorrect. What we focus on is that this caveat amounts to a criminal threat. That is what they did do.

I don't think you understand how illogical focusing on something that didn't happen becomes the more you parrot it. The caveat itself is being blown out of proportion on several different levels by people who simply hate CNN, so they focus on whatever they can to continue to hate CNN, ignoring both logic an reasoning.

Your post is a perfect example.

You claim "criminal behavior" but their action couldn't be further from the truth. You're literally lying. And you continue to focus on something they didn't actually do, ignoring what they instead did.

[Tydrane]

I don't think you understand how illogical focusing on something that didn't happen becomes the more you parrot it. The caveat itself is being blown out of proportion on several different levels by people who simply hate CNN, so they focus on whatever they can to continue to hate CNN, ignoring both logic an reasoning.

Your post is a perfect example.

You claim "criminal behavior" but their action couldn't be further from the truth. You're literally lying. And you continue to focus on something they didn't actually do, ignoring what they instead did.

Read my post again. I explained to you that nobody is focusing on something that didn't happen (the reveal of identity), they are focusing on the crime of coercion. I don't live in the US, CNN is incidental to my existence - I don't love or hate CNN, it barely registers on my radar. That being said, even prominent liberal and left-wing voices are speaking out against CNN on this one - even Julian Assange! This has gone beyond politics, it is the behaviour not the motivations that are being criticised (though you seem happy to pull them out for your straw-man counter-argument).

Anyway, let's break it down for you. This is what Andrew Kaczynski said:

“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.”

I have bolded the important part for you.

Next, here is what your relevant laws state about coercion:

A person is guilty of coercion in the second degree when he or she compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he or she has a legal right to engage, or compels or induces a person to join a group, organization or criminal enterprise which such latter person has a right to abstain from joining, by means of instilling in him or her a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will:

1. Cause physical injury to a person;  or

2. Cause damage to property;  or

3. Engage in other conduct constituting a crime;  or

4. Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against him or her;  or

5. Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule;  or

6. Cause a strike, boycott or other collective labor group action injurious to some person's business;  except that such a threat shall not be deemed coercive when the act or omission compelled is for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act;  or

7. Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another's legal claim or defense;  or

8. Use or abuse his or her position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to his or her official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely;  or

9. Perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm another person materially with respect to his or her health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships.

Again, I have bolded the important parts. It's undeniable that the caveat to Kaczynski's post conforms to the bolded sections defining criminal coercion. Smarter people than you or I, particularly in the field of law, have weighed in on this and come to the same conclusion. I invite you to prove us wrong.

[cubby]

Read my post again. I explained to you that nobody is focusing on something that didn't happen (the reveal of identity), they are focusing on the crime of coercion. I don't live in the US, CNN is incidental to my existence - I don't love or hate CNN, it barely registers on my radar. That being said, even prominent liberal and left-wing voices are speaking out against CNN on this one - even Julian Assange! This has gone beyond politics, it is the behaviour not the motivations that are being criticised (though you seem happy to pull them out for your straw-man counter-argument).

Anyway, let's break it down for you. This is what Andrew Kaczynski said:


I have bolded the important part for you.

Next, here is what your relevant laws state about coercion:



Again, I have bolded the important parts. It's undeniable that the caveat to Kaczynski's post conforms to the bolded sections defining criminal coercion. Smarter people than you or I, particularly in the field of law, have weighed in on this and come to the same conclusion. I invite you to prove us wrong.

What is your source for those laws your citing? Just curious - because the jurisdiction could matter, but not really, because . . . .

It's not coercion. Revealing someone's identity isn't a crime, and letting them know that they will do it therefore doesn't constitute a crime. You need to read #6 more carefully. If the author wanted to stay anonymous, perhaps he shouldn't have done what he did. What's wrong with one group making another sign their own work?

Plus, if you're right, then why hasn't the Trump-controlled DoJ sought out criminal charges against CNN?

[Tydrane]

What is your source for those laws your citing? Just curious - because the jurisdiction could matter, but not really, because . . . .

It's not coercion. Revealing someone's identity isn't a crime, and letting them know that they will do it therefore doesn't constitute a crime. You need to read #6 more carefully. If the author wanted to stay anonymous, perhaps he shouldn't have done what he did. What's wrong with one group making another sign their own work?

Plus, if you're right, then why hasn't the Trump-controlled DoJ sought out criminal charges against CNN?

I got the link from an earlier post, it's excerpted from the FindLaw website under the New York penal code, though you can look through and find that other states have broadly similar definitions, with some wording differences.

Revealing someone's identity isn't a crime in a vacuum. The extenuating circumstances here expose CNN to criminal liability. #6 may or may not apply, it depends on the individual's circumstances, here. Next, are you seriously advancing that anonymously posting a meme on the internet under a pseudonym is counter-intuitive to anonymity? Your last question is just patently absurd, I'm not bothering with that one.

Finally, I'm not going to speculate about the operations of a governmental body.

With that, I've said all I care to on this subject, anything further would just be rehashing what I've already said. You have the information, if you choose to continue to be wrong, that's your prerogative.

[Deleted]

This post in popehat is a well measured response

Americans — not uniquely, but powerfully — wallow in political hypocrisy about online rhetoric.

We're not consistent in our arguments about when vivid political speech speech inspires, encourages, or promotes violence. We're quicker to accept that it does when used against our team and quicker to deny it when used on the other team.

...

I think it's a legitimate story that the White House plumbs the depths of Reddit for content to post on Twitter. I think it's a legitimate story that the sort of people who post Trump-fluffing memes also post bigoted garbage — that this is the community that the White House looks to for inspiration. I think the existence and nature of sad people like this Redditor — someone who, at the most charitable interpretation, derives pleasure and meaning from pretending to be bigoted — is a legitimate and important story, especially in light of the White House's fondness for them. I think that it's a legitimate and sick-fascinating story to know what sort of person derives pleasure from posting a chart showing the pictures of CNN employees with stars next to the Jews. Does he have a job? A family? How does this hobby impact his life?

I also think that CNN has an absolutely protected First Amendment right to seek his name and publish it if they wish. The First Amendment should place strict limits on CNN's ability to use the power of the state (like discovery in a lawsuit) to unmask an anonymous person, and does. But CNN, and any private individual, has a right to figure it out on their own and talk about it, just like this creepy damaged human has a right to post the Jews-at-CNN chart in the first place.

But there's a difference between legal and moral approval. I defend the Redditor's right to post bigoted garbage but deplore him for doing so. And, under these circumstances, I personally think that it would not be proportional for CNN to use its power to name the person. A number of factors might change my view — it the guy was directing bigoted invective or threats at anyone instead of just posting it in a forum made up of similar losers, if the guy had a position of trust that required treating people equally (like, say, a public official or police officer or teacher), or if the dude was doing something like posting child porn or the sort of creepshots that took down Reddit super-troll Violentacrez.

CNN didn't publish his name. But CNN published this:

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.

I found this alarming and ugly. CNN should publish the name or not publish the name. For CNN to tell him what he should or shouldn't say in the future, and threaten him that they will reveal his name in the future if they don't like his speech, does not make them sound like journalists. It makes them sound like avenging advocates, and lends substantial credibility to the argument that they pursued him because he posted a GIF about them. I don't know what they actually intended — they've denied intent to threaten and claim this was only to clarify that there was no agreement. If so, that could have been conveyed much less like a threat. However they meant it, this is reasonably interpreted as a warning that the Redditor must speak only as approved by CNN or suffer for it. That's grotesque. Legal, but grotesque.

The internet is, in human terms, very new. We still don't have coherent shared values about how we use it. Our views on ugly internet speech and the proper response to it are particularly confused. As I've argued for a while, the argument "you have to shut up so I can feel safe to speak" is not coherent. "There's absolutely nothing wrong with my speech but there's something wrong with you identifying me as the speaker" is not particularly coherent. "You are silencing free speech by criticizing it" is not coherent. "This speech is insignificant but it's wrong for you to highlight it" is not coherent. "People should be able to post graphics identifying all the Jews at CNN without anyone figuring out who they are and criticizing them by name" is not coherent. Troll visions of free speech — in which society works together harmoniously to ensure that they can post bigotry without any social consequence — is incoherent. (I also think trolls would hate that world if they got it, since their pleasure depends upon people being upset.)

As I said when I wrote semi-anonymously, I think people should be prepared to accept the social consequences of what they've written if someone is able to figure out who they are. But I also think we should consider whether to inflict social consequences when appropriate on people who breach the anonymity of others. Sometimes social consequences — even severe ones — may be appropriate. If some anon is sending death threats, I honestly have no problem with their name being published, whether or not their friends cry "it's just trolling." I'm also not terribly sympathetic to the proposition that I should be able to send abuse to people anonymously — you by the ticket, you take the ride. If someone officially charged with treating people equally posts things suggesting they do not, that seems like a correct time for naming them. Otherwise, though, I think we should talk about whether naming people who act like assholes is proportional or decent. And certainly we should talk about whether it's decent for a major network to threaten to name someone unless they speak acceptably.

None of this means I have to take seriously the hollow fury of everyone who rails at CNN, though.

Edited to add: The notion that it was execs and lawyers who inserted the threat is both comforting (because it means the journalists aren't as foolish or awful as I thought) and horrifying (because it means the execs and lawyers are morons indifferent to the harm they do to their journalists).

[Fargus]

I was, and you make a good point. I just liked the way your phrased it and was wondering if there was more behind the words. I think I was looking for something that wasn't there, but just wanted to check. If that makes any sense, lol.




I agree.

- - - Updated - - -



So saying they might do something in the future, when all they actually did was the right thing, was the ethical problem you can't let go? The fact that their actual actions were entirely correct is just left by the wayside by you?

Of course the caveat exists - but you're making the entire incident only about the caveat. In your mind, CNN doing the right thing doesn't exist - and only something they didn't actually do does.

I'm not sure how many times we're going to have to explain it to you, but we'll keep going until you get it.

1. What CNN did was right and good and ethical.
2. What CNN said they might do in the future is almost irrelevant - because they didn't do it.

It's not irrelevant. They did issue an ultimatum to him. That's the problem - it's something they should not be doing. It makes their "good and ethical" gesture somewhat token in the end.

[Perkunas]

This post in popehat is a well measured response

That's actually a very good take on it. Kinda where I landed after most of the debate.

[primalmatter]

This post in popehat is a well measured response

My problem with this logic is how monstrous it is when taken to its logical conclusion.

This is the line of thought groups have used when inciting hatred and then eradication of out groups of society. At best its used to make people socially acceptable for terrible things to happen to them. At worst it causes full blown witch hunt.

Being anonymous is power to attack it leads to some very,very dark paths.

[Deleted]

My problem with this logic is how monstrous it is when taken to its logical conclusion.

This is the line of thought groups have used when inciting hatred and then eradication of out groups of society. At best its used to make people socially acceptable for terrible things to happen to them. At worst it causes full blown witch hunt.

Being anonymous is power to attack it leads to some very,very dark paths.

You're gonna have to be more specific.
As a general rule, yes: freedom is scary.

[primalmatter]

You're gonna have to be more specific.
As a general rule, yes: freedom is scary.

Being anonymous is the way the minority can speak against the majority. There is a reason why it was treated as taboo to crack down on it. Without it for example organized crime would have been much harder to bring to heel.

They are trying to fight a idea not by engaging with it but rather by dismissing it out of hand. What happened was the idea grew and grew after all it was never challenged. Now they are trying to fight the people behind the idea.

I don't see any good beyond superficial victories coming from this. Lets say CNN and the people who support them win. What will they have won? Driving people into hiding? Letting people talk behind closed doors until their anger finally bursts into the streets in a orgy of violence?

Ideas must be met and openly debated. Being anonymous let ideas surface that grind against the norm. Trying to get rid of that just pushes them into the shadows and nothing good grows in that darkness.

[Elba]

Being anonymous is the way the minority can speak against the majority. There is a reason why it was treated as taboo to crack down on it. Without it for example organized crime would have been much harder to bring to heel.

They are trying to fight a idea not by engaging with it but rather by dismissing it out of hand. What happened was the idea grew and grew after all it was never challenged. Now they are trying to fight the people behind the idea.

I don't see any good beyond superficial victories coming from this. Lets say CNN and the people who support them win. What will they have won? Driving people into hiding? Letting people talk behind closed doors until their anger finally bursts into the streets in a orgy of violence?

Ideas must be met and openly debated. Being anonymous let ideas surface that grind against the norm. Trying to get rid of that just pushes them into the shadows and nothing good grows in that darkness.

Not every idea is worthy of debate.

Should we gas the Jews? No. There, done.

[Deleted]

Being anonymous is the way the minority can speak against the majority. There is a reason why it was treated as taboo to crack down on it. Without it for example organized crime would have been much harder to bring to heel.

They are trying to fight a idea not by engaging with it but rather by dismissing it out of hand. What happened was the idea grew and grew after all it was never challenged. Now they are trying to fight the people behind the idea.

I don't see any good beyond superficial victories coming from this. Lets say CNN and the people who support them win. What will they have won? Driving people into hiding? Letting people talk behind closed doors until their anger finally bursts into the streets in a orgy of violence?

Ideas must be met and openly debated. Being anonymous let ideas surface that grind against the norm. Trying to get rid of that just pushes them into the shadows and nothing good grows in that darkness.

That article was not an attack on or a defense of anonymity.

[Deleted]

That article was not an attack on or a defense of anonymity.

Lets run through it:

"There's absolutely nothing wrong with my speech but there's something wrong with you identifying me as the speaker" is not particularly coherent. "You are silencing free speech by criticizing it" is not coherent. "This speech is insignificant but it's wrong for you to highlight it" is not coherent. "People should be able to post graphics identifying all the Jews at CNN without anyone figuring out who they are and criticizing them by name" is not coherent. Troll visions of free speech — in which society works together harmoniously to ensure that they can post bigotry without any social consequence — is incoherent.

"There's absolutely nothing wrong with my speech but there's something wrong with you identifying me as the speaker" is not particularly coherent. - That was an assault on the 'right' to anonymity.
More importantly, Subjecting people to societal opprobrium for speaking unpopular positions will invariably lead to a chilling effect.

"You are silencing free speech by criticizing it" is not coherent.

Depending on who (and what) is doing the speaking, yes it is.

"People should be able to post graphics identifying all the Jews at CNN without anyone figuring out who they are and criticizing them by name"

An individual should be able to criticize a multi-national without being subjected to it's Ire.

Troll visions of free speech — in which society works together harmoniously to ensure that they can post bigotry without any social consequence — is incoherent.

It really isn't - All ideas should be evaluated on its particular merits, and some people screaming 'thoughtcrime' is not a useful metric.

[Machismo]

CNN should simply exercise their freedom of speech, and release his information. Let the world now what kind of asshat he is.

[Darkeon]

Should we gas the Jews? No*.
*But we reserve the right to do so in the future, should anything change.

Huehue
But meh, I better not give CNN ideas.

[Deleted]

"There's absolutely nothing wrong with my speech but there's something wrong with you identifying me as the speaker" is not particularly coherent. - That was an assault on the 'right' to anonymity.
More importantly, Subjecting people to societal opprobrium for speaking unpopular positions will invariably lead to a chilling effect.

It's more of a recognition that rights and freedoms are in tension. In this case right to privacy and freedom of speech. The question, today, is how to possibly secure our own anonymity. But, if the info is out there, freedom of speech protects anyone's ability to broadcast it. If one is for unfettered, unrestricted and/or absolute freedom, they must respect the freedom to broadcast any legally obtained information, including the identity of a speaker. Thus the incoherence.
Though that is broadly speaking. Implementations vary by country, and some protect the individual in other ways: like for instance their dignity.

Societal opprobrium is "more speech" in this paradigm. If you've been long enough on these debates, surely you've been accused of being the censorious party on this one: because limiting, censoring, opprobrium is just as much a restriction of speech. Speech being universal has that backed in by design.
Complaining about the chilling effect is a major failure of the rhetoric employed. The school of absolute mirrors (your complain is censorious) accepts the effect as a given. So you're bound to talk past each other ad infinitude. When, really, the proper response is to add /even more speech/ to it, and subject the second speaker (the one broadcasting the identity of the first speaker, or calling him names) to further inquiry. If you want to subject CNN to opprobrium, that's up to you. I believe journalists should live in constant fear of consequences for their speech.

Depending on who (and what) is doing the speaking, yes it is.

An individual should be able to criticize a multi-national without being subjected to it's Ire.

It really isn't - All ideas should be evaluated on its particular merits, and some people screaming 'thoughtcrime' is not a useful metric.

This all falls into proportionality territory (which the article goes into, and concludes that, as things stand, the threat is not proportional). In a vacuum they're entirely incoherent. On implementation they /might/ be a silencing tactic, a disproportionate response (ire), or useless speech.
So take protest, which is a hot topic today. It's a necessary part of these freedoms. Protest per se is not silencing. A censorious protest is, though.

I'll note that I cut a part of the article that might be of more interest to you
We're pretty inconsistent in our assessment of what social consequences should flow from ugly speech, with our views of proportionality, decency, and charity diverging widely depending on whether the person at issue is on our team or not.
And several more like that, on the topic of groupthink. The "debate" is filled with these inconsistencies.

- - - Updated - - -

Huehue
But meh, I better not give CNN ideas.

Difference being that they don't have that right.

[Darkeon]

Difference being that they don't have that right.

*[..] the possibility of doing so [...]

Language barrier~ better? haha

[Deleted]

*[..] the possibility of doing so [...]

Language barrier~ better? haha

I understand what you're going for. But the detail of them having a right or not have been put in question down to citing specific legislation. So I rather stay clear on that aspect.

[Deleted]

Difference being that they don't have that right.

In regards to the blogpost, i read it in full after making the post, it was interesting.

Difference being that they don't have that right.

I'm an ardent opponent of the death penalty, but the primary reason the holocaust was bad, is because the Jews were innocent (I will gloss over the problem of collective guilt for the purpose of this point) - But if there existed incontrovertible proof the Jews actually were murderers, It wouldn't be. (Ignoring a bunch of legality and their overall treatment here too, once again, only for the purpose of this point).
As an example, The Nazi regime shot several thousand deserters - Not a crime against humanity.
And thus it remains within the purview of the 'rights' of states to 'gas anyone'.