CNN threatens to dox creator of Trump meme

[Zenfoldor]

The bit in bold is the wildly irrational part.

The moment you publicly state or publish anything, you've voluntarily given up any right to anonymity.

Comparing this to "closeted gay people in Saudi Arabia" or the like is wildly dishonest. Here's a similarly ridiculous counterpunch on the same argument; would you agree that it would be "unethical" for CNN to release the name of an ISIS agent posting ISIS recruitment propaganda in the USA, just because that agent wanted to remain anonymous?

Journalistic ethics require that you keep confidential sources anonymous, largely to ensure that future potential sources trust that you'll protect them. Exposing people's bad behaviour is literally one of the primary purposes of journalism. All you're doing here is attacking the concept of a free press.

How do journalistic ethics feel about blackmail? You tow the line we've given you or we release your personal information(and since you will be deemed "famous" pro Trump, you will certainly get harassed, fired, and life ruined once we do). I just don't see how you get around that. It takes some major mental gymnastics. Just because you may think he deserves it doesn't make it okay.

[Endus]

No, its:
"Men are subhuman and should be eliminated": a normal, everyday left wing opinion.

You know, it's difficult to take you seriously when you say things that are so aggressively and unrelentingly ridiculous as this. Are you self-satirizing, or something?

[Deleted]

Funny how that guy comes in, screams his autistic BS and runs away like fucking Zoidberg.

Read his posts with all his creative versions of "Donald Drumpf" while keeping in mind he's a 40+ y/o guy. Makes it even funnier :^)

[NineSpine]

I don't think you get it, your NAACP membership can be completely immaterial to your job, I can just fire you because i don't like that organization.

That depends on the state.

[Elba]

yes you did.

/the_donald is a racist source. a very public, well known one. it is not in the deep obscure reaches as you claim.

To be fair, it's not uncommon to hear leftists openly tout things like "White males are evil and should be eliminated.

No, its:
"Men are subhuman and should be eliminated": a normal, everyday left wing opinion.

Yeah, this is blatantly not true.

[Deleted]

You didn't answer the question. What would those repercussions be?

A news article publishing someone's name isn't doxxing, btw.

They should fear, constantly, all kinds of consequences. From mild insult and contract terminations to torture and slaughter of their beloved. If they keep feeling completely safe in their reporting, it devolves into bullshit. Absent fear, they have no reason to keep a high standard.
That's what they should fear. What consequences I think apply to this transgression are whatever makes them publicly apologize. It's only a question of upping the pressure until they do. Of course, people forget easily, so my hopes to correct this wrong are not high. Sycophants and shills are also strong in their defense, which is a problem.

A news article publishing someone's name isn't doxxing, btw.

Doxxing is a vague term that people use asymmetrically when it fits their interest.

[Deleted]

In a right-to-work state? Absolutely. As long as you're okay with the firing being publicized and any fallout you'll face in return for doing so.

In other states, or in countries like Canada, you'd need to establish how those things impacted upon your actual work, to provide grounds, but there are plenty of opinions (like pretty much any form of bigotry) which clearly do, and are thus clear grounds for summary dismissal with cause. Your two examples wouldn't fit, but "I don't like black people" or "women should stay in the kitchen" are both clear grounds for summary firing with cause pretty much everywhere.

God the argument is not about the legality of the action, it is about the social implications of the action.
Firing people for holding opinions is legal, But should not done.
And i assure you, once the regressive left manages to politicize the workplace, well, the people with the money (i.e the owners) they tend to be, whats the word, right wing.
That's a culture war everyone, but the left especially, will lose.

[NineSpine]

To be fair, it's not uncommon to hear leftists openly tout things like "White males are evil and should be eliminated."

Both are horrible things to say, but many leftists wouldn't consider the white male quote to be horrible. That's one of the problems with trying to label what is and isn't "hate speech", it's very easily victim to personal and mainstream media bias.

Think about it... If someone had posted an anti-trump meme, and their Reddit history had things like "White males should be eliminated", "Fuck crackers", etc, most people wouldn't even bat an eye because the media has conditioned people into thinking that that's okay.

I run in some pretty far left circles, and I have never heard "white males should be eliminated".

- - - Updated - - -

God the argument is not about the legality of the action, it is about the social implications of the action.
Firing people for holding opinions is legal, But should not done.
And i assure you, once the regressive left manages to politicize the workplace, well, the people with the money (i.e the owners) they tend to be, whats the word, right wing.
That's a culture war everyone, but the left especially, will lose.

I have more minority clients than I do white clients. Do you believe it is morally wrong for me to fire someone who is openly racist?

[Endus]

How do journalistic ethics feel about blackmail? You tow the line we've given you or we release your personal information(and since you will be deemed "famous" pro Trump, you will certainly get harassed, fired, and life ruined once we do). I just don't see how you get around that. It takes some major mental gymnastics. Just because you may think he deserves it doesn't make it okay.

Calling it "blackmail" is pretty silly, IMO. CNN was willing to out him, and it was entirely in their right to do so. The guy apologized, so CNN decided to respect that, but reserved the right to change their mind if it turned out his apology wasn't made in good faith. Nothing about exposing the guy's identity is in the least bit objectionable, ethically.

[Venant]

The bit in bold is the wildly irrational part.

The moment you publicly state or publish anything, you've voluntarily given up any right to anonymity.

Comparing this to "closeted gay people in Saudi Arabia" or the like is wildly dishonest. Here's a similarly ridiculous counterpunch on the same argument; would you agree that it would be "unethical" for CNN to release the name of an ISIS agent posting ISIS recruitment propaganda in the USA, just because that agent wanted to remain anonymous?

Journalistic ethics require that you keep confidential sources anonymous, largely to ensure that future potential sources trust that you'll protect them. Exposing people's bad behaviour is literally one of the primary purposes of journalism. All you're doing here is attacking the concept of a free press.

So you jump from unmasking the anonymity of political dissidents to the anonymity of people who are literal agents of violent terrorist organizations, and you are claiming that I am being wildly dishonest? I think you need to reconsider that analogy, since it completely misses the point of anonymous criticism being a vehicle by which people can speak truth to power.

[Deleted]

You know, it's difficult to take you seriously when you say things that are so aggressively and unrelentingly ridiculous as this. Are you self-satirizing, or something?

Feminist Journalist: ‘All Men Are Rapists and Should Be Put in Prison Then Shot’
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8386/f...prestigiacomo#

yeah it was completely out of this world, she said prison and not concentration camp after all.

[Elba]

They should fear, constantly, all kinds of consequences. From mild insult and contract terminations to torture and slaughter of their beloved. If they keep feeling completely safe in their reporting, it devolves into bullshit. Absent fear, they have no reason to keep a high standard.
That's what they should fear. What consequences I think apply to this transgression are whatever makes them publicly apologize. It's only a question of upping the pressure until they do. Of course, people forget easily, so my hopes to correct this wrong are not high. Sycophants and shills are also strong in their defense, which is a problem.

Ah, that famous right wing irony. kek

Doxxing is a vague term that people use asymmetrically when it fits their interest.

Which is what you are doing.

[Deleted]

That depends entirely on the opinion in question. Firing an employee for "liking zucchini" would be ridiculous. Firing an employee for expressing a view that "Jews are subhuman and should be eliminated", isn't just justified, it should be applauded.

No it depends on your moral stance on the matter.

[NineSpine]

So you jump from unmasking the anonymity of political dissidents to the anonymity of people who are literal agents of violent terrorist organizations, and you are claiming that I am being wildly dishonest? I think you need to reconsider that analogy, since it completely misses the point of anonymous criticism being a vehicle by which people can speak truth to power.

I've aksed you this question like four times and you just won't answer: Have I doxed you and violated your human rights if I see you walking down the street yelling racist things and I tell everyone your name?

[Karon]

I have more minority clients than I do white clients. Do you believe it is morally wrong for me to fire someone who is openly racist?

I can answer this with what the mods on this forum would say:

Is it against minorities? Fuck yes!
Is it against white people? Rofl no there is no such thing as racism against white people.

[Moralgy]

To be fair, it's not uncommon to hear leftists openly tout things like "White males are evil and should be eliminated."

Both are horrible things to say, but many leftists wouldn't consider the white male quote to be horrible. That's one of the problems with trying to label what is and isn't "hate speech", it's very easily victim to personal and mainstream media bias.

Think about it... If someone had posted an anti-trump meme, and their Reddit history had things like "White males should be eliminated", "Fuck crackers", etc, most people wouldn't even bat an eye because the media has conditioned people into thinking that that's okay.

The only times I have ever heard that is once in a tumblr post that got ridiculed to no end on tumblr itself, and repeated over and over by anti-feminists, or now it seems anti-left-wing.

The crackers thing is far more common though, I might see it on tumblr, you know the worst place evar, once a week.

[Deleted]

Nothing about exposing the guy's identity is in the least bit objectionable, ethically.

Ehrm.. what...

[Deleted]

I have more minority clients than I do white clients. Do you believe it is morally wrong for me to fire someone who is openly racist?

Wonder how we got housing segregation going?
Could it be that the majority clients had more money than the minority clients, and some people then made the choice to cater to the white folk?

[Deleted]

Ah, that famous right wing irony. kek

Sarcasm, actually.

Which is what you are doing.

I recognize a fault in the scheme of things. Yes. claiming it isn't doxxing is the same asymmetric use.

[Elba]

Sarcasm, actually.

Well, the Pepes always call it irony.