CNN Doxxes a gif maker

[apathoid]

I know right?

How does a news organization "grow some stones"?

By not getting butthurt all the damn time and focusing on reporting news.

Others here think they (CNN) are blackmailing and extorting the poor gif creator!

Ah, so you agree with what CNN did here? It's ok for a big business to harass private citizens, possibly breaking the law? Are you defending it out of principle of defending "the man" versus defending "the little guy" or does your hatred of Trump cause you to throw all your liberal principles out of the window?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Ah, so you agree with what CNN did here? It's ok for a big business to harass private citizens, possibly breaking the law? Are you defending it out of principle of defending "the man" versus defending "the little guy" or does your hatred of Trump cause you to throw all your liberal principles out of the window?

What if we are not operating under your assessment that it constitutes harassment?

 

[Elagabalus]

goes back and re-reads the link.

Yeah, just what I said: "You can also have someone's dox without actually revealing it to the world."

Now why would you want to do that?? Extortion mayhaps?

Yes, extortion.

Are you quoting yourself?

Here's a quote from your link:

...After posting his apology, "HanA**holeSolo" called CNN's KFile and confirmed his identity...

 

[The Big Dog]

For people who still don't know what doxxing is, here is ANOTHER link that specifically notes that you don't have to publish the info:

http://subliminalridge.blogspot.com/2012/10/doxing-and-barrett-brown-indictment.html

IS COUNT TWO ABOUT "DOXING"?
YES. Count Two alleges that Barrett Brown asked someone to find info on the internet about the FBI Agent, and someone searched on the internet for such information. The indictment does not state that the information was ever found or ever posted; it does not need to be. The Conspiracy allegedly exists because the two people, Barrett and someone else known to the grand jury, allegedly agreed to commit this crime. If two people agree to commit a crime and some step is taken in furtherance of the crime, conspiracy exists.

 

[Shalamar]

Never fear racist lunatics are going to protest at the reporters house.

Don't worry. The right wingers won't care. I'm not sure they even consider reporters as people.

 

[BobTheCoward]

For people who still don't know what doxxing is, here is ANOTHER link that specifically notes that you don't have to publish the info:

http://subliminalridge.blogspot.com/2012/10/doxing-and-barrett-brown-indictment.html

That says the law is only if the goal is to threaten, intimidate, or get someone else to.

 

[The Big Dog]

Are you quoting yourself?

Here's a quote from your link:

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.
On Monday, KFile attempted to contact the man by email and phone but he did not respond.

 

[apathoid]

Do you even know what happened ?

Now the user is apologizing, writing in a lengthy post on Reddit that he does not advocate violence against the press and expressing remorse there and in an interview with CNN for other posts he made that were racist and anti-Semitic.

Sounds coerced, which makes all this even creepier and stinks of thought policing. Obviously, it was a silly gif and it wasn't even funny. Anyone who thinks it was anything more is retarded.

No one is limiting his speech, he is just too much of a pussy ( to use TBD words from the OP) to own up to what he wrote in public.

He has freedom of speech, not freedom from consequence.

Edited by jsfisher: 

...snip... Edited for compliance with Rules 0 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.

 

[NoahFence]

I think you would have to be noid level confused to interpret this as direction to commit violence.

Agreed. It's as probable as finding someone stupid enough to think the Democratic candidate for President was running a child sex ring out of a pizza store.

I mean, it's not as if anything THAT stupid could ever lead to violence.

amirite?

 

[sonofthor]

By not getting butthurt all the damn time and focusing on reporting news.

Ah, so you agree with what CNN did here? It's ok for a big business to harass private citizens, possibly breaking the law? Are you defending it out of principle of defending "the man" versus defending "the little guy" or does your hatred of Trump cause you to throw all your liberal principles out of the window?

Apparently, so. I am really amazed that some many people on here are justifying what CNN has done. CNN has blackmailed a 15 year old kid who did a **** post. And the fact that so many here lack any kind of ethics or morals, that they think it's ok that a mutli-billion dollar news organization bullied a kid....I have no sympathy for CNN or others that side with them. CNN was wrong. Not only that but CNN has doubled down recently with there Abraham Lincoln miss-quote...during the 4th of July no less! LOL! CNN has lost any kind of credibility or trust worthiness. Or what ever was left of it...PS. The meme war has begun! kek!

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 10. If you must swear in the public sections (of which USA Politics is one) then you must type the word in full, correctly spelled and with no replacement characters or creative misspellings; this allows the auto censor to "see" the word and to convert it to asterisks if it is on the banned list.

 

[NoahFence]

Yeah, stones...balls...testicles. If you want to live in a world where making funny memes and gifs is considered a hate crime and worthy of blackmail, public shaming or worse go move to the Middle East. They have the same sort of feelings on the subject. I want to live in a world that cherishes free speech, where people will defend it even if they disagree with it.

I'm just saying that threats against CNN no matter how absurd YOU think they are WILL cause violence. And promoting violence is not protected speech kiddo.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Agreed. It's as probable as finding someone stupid enough to think the Democratic candidate for President was running a child sex ring out of a pizza store.

I mean, it's not as if anything THAT stupid could ever lead to violence.

amirite?

That is actual "fake news." The gif is commentary but no claim of factual activity.

 

[apathoid]

What if we are not operating under your assessment that it constitutes harassment?

I'm using the definition of the word. You honestly see no problem with this? You are ok with media (doing whatever the hell you call this) a private citizen that made some reddit posts. It seems to me that left has a free speech problem(...and before some retard lectures me on what free speech is....) -I'm talking about this idea where you feel the need to silence your opponents. If you are ok with silencing your political opponents, I dont know what to say other than to call you a facist. Again, thats going off of the definition of the word.

 

[NoahFence]

I'm using the definition of the word. You honestly see no problem with this? You are ok with media (doing whatever the hell you call this) a private citizen that made some reddit posts. It seems to me that left has a free speech problem(...and before some retard lectures me on what free speech is....) -I'm talking about this idea where you feel the need to silence your opponents. If you are ok with silencing your political opponents, I dont know what to say other than to call you a facist. Again, thats going off of the definition of the word.

So, like Trump?

 

[Beerina]

I'm just saying that threats against CNN no matter how absurd YOU think they are WILL cause violence. And promoting violence is not protected speech kiddo.

You can't make this stuff up -- a stupid wrestling video with a CNN logo pasted on for a head is "promoting violence"?

You need to go look up how the Supreme Court views this. To sum up: Only exhortations to imminent lawless and direct, specific actions count. "I wish someone would kill them" or "Wouldn't it be neat if someone sawed off Trump's head like this -- I might do so myself, wink!" or "I want to blow up the White House!", these are protected speech.

Doesn't mean it isn't rude or way out there or deserving of criticism, but that, kiddo, you're simply wrong.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'm using the definition of the word. You honestly see no problem with this? You are ok with media (doing whatever the hell you call this) a private citizen that made some reddit posts. It seems to me that left has a free speech problem(...and before some retard lectures me on what free speech is....) -I'm talking about this idea where you feel the need to silence your opponents. If you are ok with silencing your political opponents, I dont know what to say other than to call you a facist. Again, thats going off of the definition of the word.

The classic statement is freedom of speech only applies to government restriction. Two private entities are talking in the scenario above.

 

[apathoid]

I'm just saying that threats against CNN no matter how absurd YOU think they are WILL cause violence. And promoting violence is not protected speech kiddo.

Not a fan of free speech old timer? Yup, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

And the left is sooooooo innocent of promoting violence, amirite? Jesus Christ, you blind idealouges on a critical thinking forum crack me up.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

You can't make this stuff up -- a stupid wrestling video with a CNN logo pasted on for a head is "promoting violence"?

You need to go look up how the Supreme Court views this. To sum up: Only exhortations to imminent lawless and direct, specific actions count. "I wish someone would kill them" or "Wouldn't it be neat if someone sawed off Trump's head like this -- I might do so myself!" or "I want to blow up the White House!", these are protected speech.

Doesn't mean it isn't rude or way out there or deserving of criticism, but that, kiddo, you're simply wrong.

You're invoking the legally enforceable standard, he was discussing the predictable sociological results.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[NoahFence]

Not a fan of free speech old timer? Yup, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

And the left is sooooooo innocent of promoting violence, amirite? Jesus Christ, you blind idealouges on a critical thinking forum crack me up.

^^

This post brought to you by the letters DILLIGAF

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Not a fan of free speech old timer? Yup, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

And the left is sooooooo innocent of promoting violence, amirite? Jesus Christ, you blind idealouges on a critical thinking forum crack me up.

So an individual cannot object to this because "the left" does it, too?

That's hasty generalization and Tu Quoque all rolled into one.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk