Re: House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and others shot at congressional softball pract
Which it is not.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/04/po...eet/index.html
Quote:
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.
In the eyes of everyone with eyes to read thier statement it is blackmail.
This is not a celebrity this is a private citizen and the press do not have the same carte blanche to expose detail, especially when such detail would put the citizen's life and wellbeing in danger. Yet CNN declares they will do so anyway should the man repeat his "ugly behavior".
Re: House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and others shot at congressional softball pract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greyblades
Which it is not.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/04/po...eet/index.html
In the eyes of everyone with eyes to read thier statement it is blackmail.
This is not a celebrity this is a private citizen and the press do not have the same carte blanche to expose detail, especially when such detail would put the citizen's life and wellbeing in danger.
From your own article:
"The apology came after CNN's KFile identified the man behind "HanA**holeSolo." Using identifying information that "HanA**holeSolo" posted on Reddit, KFile was able to determine key biographical details, to find the man's name using a Facebook search and ultimately corroborate details he had made available on Reddit."
That's public information. He posted on a public forum and made public his facebook info.
Why are you defending a 40 year old man who talks about killing black people online as if he needs to be protected from media that gave him the courtesy of anonymity precisely because they would ruin his life by revealing that he likes to play KKK online.
Also, celebrities are not different from private citizens. If random paparazzi can legally take pictures of celebrity babies and post them online, then this is no different.
Re: House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and others shot at congressional softball pract
Quote:
From your own article:
"The apology came after CNN's KFile identified the man behind "HanA**holeSolo." Using identifying information that "HanA**holeSolo" posted on Reddit, KFile was able to determine key biographical details, to find the man's name using a Facebook search and ultimately corroborate details he had made available on Reddit."
That's public information. He posted on a public forum and made public his facebook info.
They identified him and contacted him, they did not make the information public on who he was and now the information that connected the account to his facebook profile is long gone.
If CNN identifies him now it is a dox.
Quote:
Why are you defending a 40 year old man who talks about killing black people online as if he needs to be protected from media that gave him the courtesy of anonymity precisely because they would ruin his life by revealing that he likes to play KKK online.
Are you trying to excuse blackmail because the victim expresses opinions you dislike?
Is this what it's come down to? Thought crime?
I dont care if he was a 70 year old who sang "gas the kikes" in tune to the carebear theme song while wearing a gimp costume. This is a national news network intimidating a man into a blatantly scripted apology and threatening him with a dox if he goes back on it.
A man who commited no crime or influcted no injury; save making a funny gif!
Quote:
Also, celebrities are not different from private citizens. If random paparazzi can legally take pictures of celebrity babies and post them online, then this is no different.
Look up your own laws once in a while:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privac..._United_States
Quote:
The essence of the law derives from a right to privacy, defined broadly as "the right to be let alone." It usually excludes personal matters or activities which may reasonably be of public interest, like those of celebrities or participants in newsworthy events.
The exposure of a gif maker is not protected under the law for his identity is of no public interest.
Re: House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and others shot at congressional softball pract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greyblades
They identified him and contacted him, they did not make the information public on who he was and now the information that connected the account to his facebook profile is long gone.
If CNN identifies him now it is a dox.
You are moving the goal post. First it was, "they committed blackmail". Now it is "if they release the information now, then they are in trouble".
Quote:
Are you trying to excuse blackmail because the victim expresses opinions you dislike?
Is this what it's come down to? Thought crime?
I dont care if he was a 70 year old who sang "gas the kikes" in tune to the carebear theme song while wearing a gimp costume. This is a national news network intimidating a man into a blatantly scripted apology and threatening him with a dox if he goes back on it.
A man who commited no crime or influcted no injury; save making a funny gif!
I am asking why people who identify as alt-right like yourself seem to care so much about the rights of those who wish to trample other people's rights.
At a certain point the alt-right snowflake mentality gets tiring, "I want my free speech, but without consequences!"
It is when POTUS re-tweets it. Any statement endorsed by the POTUS is of public interest.
Re: House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and others shot at congressional softball pract
Freedom of speech does not free you from the consequences of your speech. Our Constitution, as amended, emphatically declares that the federal government will not curtail this right -- and numerous state constitutions emulate this restriction. Our culture has always been tolerant of free speech, particularly in the political realm. We have been equally tolerant of the person critiquing your speech as being full of excrement.
Re: House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and others shot at congressional softball pract
This isnt an issue of free speech, this is an issue of anonyminity and the consequences of it's revokation. The man expressed his views under the same condition of anonyminity we all reside under. If this man is publically doxed on national news at best you severely reduce his potential, damage his relations and at worst they get him killed.
And please dont pull some "you're being hysterical" line; this is a highly charged political are upon which violence has allready been enacted, people have been almost killed with the same means for even less heinous "offences".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
a completely inoffensive name
You are moving the goal post. First it was, "they committed blackmail". Now it is "if they release the information now, then they are in trouble".
I havent moved any goal post, I have merely put a bullet into your ill informed idea that it is public information.
Quote:
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.
The threat of his dox is being held over him to cooerce him to do something he wouldnt otherwise do. This is blackmail.
Quote:
I am asking why people who identify as alt-right like yourself seem to care so much about the rights of those who wish to trample other people's rights.
At a certain point the alt-right snowflake mentality gets tiring, "I want my free speech, but without consequences!"
"First they came for the alt-right and I didnt speak out-
Because I wasnt an alt-righter."
Spare me your apologistic whataboutery I have little patience for it.
Quote:
It is when POTUS re-tweets it. Any statement endorsed by the POTUS is of public interest.
It's a shitpost not a political manifesto; The public gains nothing from the identity of the man who superimposed CNN over Vince McMahon's face.
Re: House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and others shot at congressional softball pract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greyblades
I havent moved any goal post, I have merely put a bullet into your ill informed idea that it is public information.
This is why no one wants to debate you. The mental gymnastics are too much. If it was public at the time CNN looked into his background, which I have already established was public on both Reddit and Facebook then his removal of the information after the fact does not change the status of the info.
You just refuse to accept any pushback on your understanding of a topic. The fact that this man posted all of his info on public forums won't even budge your alt-right talking point that CNN somehow illegally obtained said info.
No point in even going through this line by line. You just repeat yourself with the same statements.
Re: House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and others shot at congressional softball pract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Montmorency
On the other hand, many on the left believe that political orientation should not be a basis for discrimination in, for instance, hiring or employment.
For civil servant positions in government bureaucracy? I agree. For private businesses? Disagree.
Re: House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and others shot at congressional softball pract
I don't think Greyblades is worried about the info itself, but the allegation that CNN used the threat of releasing personal information to extract an apology from the person in question.
If that were the case, that would be an ethical breach.
Of course there is no direct evidence that this happened, and depends on a bad faith interpretation of the CNN article.
Re: House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and others shot at congressional softball pract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
a completely inoffensive name
2. I think publicly used businesses should not be able to suppress my right to free speech. (This is in response to an alt-right person kicked out of a movie theater.) Your property rights shouldn't trample my right to free speech.
[...]
He replied back that if gays and blacks have to be served, alt-right people shouldn't be discriminated against. I told him blackness and gayness are arbitrary values to discriminate on. Your political opinion is something you choose to have and is therefore not arbitrary to discriminate on. He said he simply disagrees and wouldn't elaborate.
You can't necessarily choose what you believe any more than your sexual orientation (or lack thereof), though you can choose (as far as your self-discipline goes) not to express either. At some point in the not-too-distant future, I can only assume that it will be possible to change traits like skin colour through gene therapy, such that you can choose your skin colour (light, dark, blue, orange - whatever).
Re: House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and others shot at congressional softball pract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Viking
You can't necessarily choose what you believe any more than your sexual orientation (or lack thereof), though you can choose (as far as your self-discipline goes) not to express either. At some point in the not-too-distant future, I can only assume that it will be possible to change traits like skin colour through gene therapy, such that you can choose your skin colour (light, dark, blue, orange - whatever).
You start with the eyes, I guess. A garish full-body coloring would be offensive to younger generations who go in for intricate self-decoration through tattooing.
Re: House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and others shot at congressional softball pract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greyblades
Which it is not.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/04/po...eet/index.html
In the eyes of everyone with eyes to read thier statement it is blackmail.
This is not a celebrity this is a private citizen and the press do not have the same carte blanche to expose detail, especially when such detail would put the citizen's life and wellbeing in danger. Yet CNN declares they will do so anyway should the man repeat his "ugly behavior".
Not every condition is blackmail. If the cashier in the supermarket says you cannot leave with your goods unless you pay for them, they're not threatening you with illegal detention. If the press releasing your name is a relatively normal and legal thing in the US, much like the perp walk, then the press telling you that they would release your name if you continue to be an a-hole is actually just them being nice given that they could have just printed it and not gotten into any trouble either. They only provide an incentive for him to behave himself. And assuming that they could easily find out who he is, so could anyone else most likely.
You could go even further and say what he posted put the lives and wellbeing of many citizens in danger given that he glorified beating up press representatives and incited hatred against semites and "other races" apparently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
a completely inoffensive name
Also, celebrities are not different from private citizens. If random paparazzi can legally take pictures of celebrity babies and post them online, then this is no different.
Not necessarily. At least here I think the rules can change depending on what you do etc. For example if I went to a party, took a photo of one girl and published it without her consent, she could sue me. If I took the same photo of the same girl posing with five other girls or her being just one of 30 random people on the photo, it would be different. If I'm not mistaken it is also fdifferent if the person is someone "of public interest" or so. I don't know the exact legalities, but if people make money by being famous, I think their personality rights are a bit reduced in this regard. You still shouldn't stalk them at home, but taking photographs of them in public is probably less protected. I would also assume that the internet makes all of this more complicated as someone's Twitter post can voluntarily or involuntarily make them a "celebrity". :shrug:
Re: House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and others shot at congressional softball pract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
a completely inoffensive name
This is why no one wants to debate you. The mental gymnastics are too much. If it was public at the time CNN looked into his background, which I have already established was public on both Reddit and Facebook then his removal of the information after the fact does not change the status of the info.
You just refuse to accept any pushback on your understanding of a topic. The fact that this man posted all of his info on public forums won't even budge your alt-right talking point that CNN somehow illegally obtained said info.
No point in even going through this line by line. You just repeat yourself with the same statements.
I have never said that the information was collected iillegally and I cannot fathom how you have come to such a wrong headed interpritation of my objections. You are hardly are in the position to accuse me of mental gymnastics.
No he did not post all his info on public forums; he mentioned and alluded to enough information during his conversations for CNN to piece together his real life identity. It would be public info if he had intentionally put that information out on his account details but he did not.
I dont fall back because you dont push, at best you dodge, spin and moralize, seemingly believeing such constitutes a debunking.
Are you sure the actual reason you dont want to debate me isnt because it is you who keeps dying on the wrong hill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Montmorency
I don't think Greyblades is worried about the info itself, but the allegation that CNN used the threat of releasing personal information to extract an apology from the person in question.
If that were the case, that would be an ethical breach.
Of course there is no direct evidence that this happened, and depends on a bad faith interpretation of the CNN article.
As far as I can see an ethical breach is the good faith interpritation; the bad faith interpritation is criminality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
Not every condition is blackmail. If the cashier in the supermarket says you cannot leave with your goods unless you pay for them, they're not threatening you with illegal detention. If the press releasing your name is a relatively normal and legal thing in the US, much like the perp walk, then the press telling you that they would release your name if you continue to be an a-hole is actually just them being nice given that they could have just printed it and not gotten into any trouble either. They only provide an incentive for him to behave himself. And assuming that they could easily find out who he is, so could anyone else most likely.
Incentive to behave himself? If his name and address is broadcast on CNN his life will be ruined if not ended. Harrassment will likely ensue; blacklisting amongst major employers, in this political climate it would likely escalate to threats, stalking and perhaps even outright murder attempts.
The news have a moral and legal obligation not broadcast the name let alone the address of persons who would have thier life and livelyhood threatened by the broadcasting, with the only caveat being those who are on the run.
This man has comitted no crime and CNN is threatening this man with the mob unless he stays prostrate.
Quote:
You could go even further and say what he posted put the lives and wellbeing of many citizens in danger given that he glorified beating up press representatives and incited hatred against semites and "other races" apparently.
With no real platform or professional obligation it would be hard to establish such a significant effect. It would be hard enough to establish intent as what there remains of his posts (as found on encyclopedia dramatica who recovered of some of his deleted posts from the various archive sites) he did not make any attempts at incitement, merely acted the typical racist troll.
Regardless it is not CNN's place to play judge and jury, it goes far beyond the remit of the press to take such things into it's own hands.
Re: House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and others shot at congressional softball pract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greyblades
Incentive to behave himself? If his name and address is broadcast on CNN his life will be ruined if not ended. Harrassment will likely ensue; blacklisting amongst major employers, in this political climate it would likely escalate to threats, stalking and perhaps even outright murder attempts.
The news have a moral and legal obligation not broadcast the name let alone the address of persons who would have thier life and livelyhood threatened by the broadcasting, with the only caveat being those who are on the run.
This man has comitted no crime and CNN is threatening this man with the mob unless he stays prostrate.
You're making things up now. They said his name, where is the address coming from?
They're also not threatening him with a mob. If there were to be a mob, then CNN would be as responsible for that as he would be if someone acted on his racist trolling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greyblades
With no real platform or professional obligation it would be hard to establish such a significant effect. It would be hard enough to establish intent as what there remains of his posts (as found on encyclopedia dramatica who recovered of some of his deleted posts from the various archive sites) he did not make any attempts at incitement, merely acted the typical racist troll.
Regardless it is not CNN's place to play judge and jury, it goes far beyond the remit of the press to take such things into it's own hands.
No, they have a right to report the truth. Not giving out his true name basically makes it fake news. They should publish the real names and not allow him to hide behind a pseudonym like a coward.
And no, there are no special moral obligations for them, corporations are people in the US.
Re: House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and others shot at congressional softball pract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greyblades
I have never said that the information was collected iillegally and I cannot fathom how you have come to such a wrong headed interpritation of my objections. You are hardly are in the position to accuse me of mental gymnastics.
No he did not post all his info on public forums; he mentioned and alluded to enough information during his conversations for CNN to piece together his real life identity. It would be public info if he had intentionally put that information out on his account details but he did not.
I dont fall back because you dont push, at best you dodge, spin and moralize, seemingly believeing such constitutes a debunking.
I'm actually somewhat in agreement with you. If there was some public interest in revealing the guy's identity, they should have just done so. I may be missing something but it sounds as if they've said to the guy "stop being a dick online, or we're going to expose what you've been doign for everyone to see". Wether that amounts to extortion or blackmail sounds really doubtful though.
I don't understand why the Alt Right gets worked up about it though. Most of them seemed to have no problem with ruining the life of a restaurant owner and his family (see: Pizzagate) in order to have a little fun and score a few political points. What's good for the goose...
Re: House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and others shot at congressional softball pract
Well, apparently BILD just published unedited faces of some of the extreme left rioters from the G20 in Hamburg, with the headline "wanted!". Seems like it was not in cooperation with police, just them basically saying "hey, look for these troublemakers".
http://faktenfinder.tagesschau.de/in...anzig-147.html
As for CNN, again, it looks like they decided not to publish it since he apologized but also didn't want to close that door forever.
They're not demanding that the guy does anything that he didn't already do anyway. They're saying if he turns around, they'll turn around, too.
See it as a gentlemen's agreement, and if one side breaks it, the other side will not feel bound to it anymore either.
If CNN should be punished for anything, it's auto-playing videos...
