CNN Doxxes a gif maker

[The Big Dog]

Law enforcement requires identifying suspects to the police. And actual criminals forfeit their right to anonymity. The cost of lost anonymity is much lower than the benefit of effective law enforcement.

As for non-criminals, there may well be some scenarios which justify involuntary public identification of a non-public figure. But even there, the justifications would primarily be local in scope, and the exposure should be commensurately local. Outing someone on a national scale for making an insulting video doesn't even come close.

By the way, that post to which you replied is a fine example of the Rule of so.

Hoo boy!

 

[Minoosh]

Because it cannot be refuted with rational argument. You cannot say, don't laugh at that, it's not funny because x disproves y. You can only stop people from laughing at what they find funny by threatening them. But threats aren't logic, they are just force.

Is this a surprise to you? Is this a mystery? Do you not understand how humor operates?

If mockery achieves its aim, I figure it's a rational tactic.

 

[Ziggurat]

If mockery achieves its aim, I figure it's a rational tactic.

Sure. Which is why Alinsky was advocating its use, even while calling it irrational. That descriptor is obviously intended to refer to the content of the mockery, not necessarily to the decision to use it.

Though in johnny's case, I'd call the decision to use it irrational as well.

 

[tyr_13]

You weren't talking about hypothetical situations either. You referred to actual cases, plural. Can you not even keep track of your own posts?

Oh, so you want to know which cases? Why didn't you just ask that? Instead you made a false accusation of fallacy.

Of course CNN should be held to a higher standard. Their power and influence demands it.

And they are. This is not something to forget or ignore.

And I can't hold HAS to any standard, since I have no leverage against him. I think it's bad when individuals doxx people, and HAS is wrong for doing so, but he's not peculiar or unique in doing so.

You have essentially the same 'leverage' against HAS that you have against CNN; your speaking out against either of them is the extent of it. The amount of teeth pulling to get you to admit someone attack CNN has indeed done wrong or been hypocritical is problematic for your credibility.

Boo hoo. Considering how often you shade conservatives directly and openly, these are crocodile tears. These are the forum rules, in practice: insult an entire side, and everything is fair game. And I've been mild, compared to what your side routinely does here.

Going to hold the words of others against me now? Very intellectually honest of you. I'll be sure to remind you every time of BeAChooser, logger, and Childlike Empress. More than that, you have involved a tu quoque that just reinforces my previous point; specific kinds of tactics or criticisms are often valid or not because of the specifics of the situation (such as shaming someone for doing something actually shameful).

And if you're going to constantly hammer me with false accusations of past hypocrisy, I will continue to remind lurkers of the context your strategy brings.

It's not my job to express whatever level of outrage you demand. I've never said one word in defense of HAS or any of his supporters for doxxing anyone.

No, you just attack his detractors with criticisms that apply more to him and his supporters, and must be dragged kicking and screaming into acknowledging their malfeasance.

No, actually, I have not. I have only attacked CNN for what CNN has done. I never claimed CNN doxxed anyone, only that they threatened to do so. And they quite clearly did.

And then deftly changed from the threat of it (reporting on someone who made news is another situation that justifies a certain level of 'doxxing'), to the consequences and criticisms of doxxing itself. Writing, as always, crafted to confuse the reader into conflating the two without having the integrity to make the accusation directly.

Your hypocrisy makes the accusation irrelevant.

It doesn't matter if I'm a huge POS, a comedian, or a dog, the argument or observation stands or falls on it's own merits.

 

[d4m10n]

Law enforcement requires identifying suspects to the police. And actual criminals forfeit their right to anonymity.

I cannot agree with this at all. I would definitely fault you for outing @WeedBro420 merely because he happens to violate a number of unjust and irrational federal laws.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Ziggurat]

Going to hold the words of others against me now?

No, tyr. I need only consult your very own words.

And if you're going to constantly hammer me with false accusations of past hypocrisy,

Your hypocrisy is ongoing, including in this post.

No, you just attack his detractors with criticisms that apply more to him and his supporters, and must be dragged kicking and screaming into acknowledging their malfeasance.

Wrong again. He wasn't the one actually SWATing people. The malfeasance has been even worse on the left.

And then deftly changed from the threat of it (reporting on someone who made news is another situation that justifies a certain level of 'doxxing'), to the consequences and criticisms of doxxing itself.

That's the stupidest thing you've written yet in this thread. The nature of an act is of obvious and direct relevance to any evaluation of a threat to do that act. That's why we treat threats of murder differently than threats of calling someone names.

Writing, as always, crafted to confuse the reader into conflating the two without having the integrity to make the accusation directly.

You have yourself dishonestly conflated things. My criticism of the left hasn't been confined to CNN. There is no logical reason I need confine myself to only discussing things that CNN itself has done.

It doesn't matter if I'm a huge POS, a comedian, or a dog, the argument or observation stands or falls on it's own merits.

And yet, you still feel the need to level personal accusations against me. Why do you imagine I would simply take it without dishing any back?

Even when objecting to being called on hypocricy, you still prove me right.

 

[Ziggurat]

I cannot agree with this at all. I would definitely fault you for outing @WeedBro420 merely because he happens to violate a number of unjust and irrational federal laws.

Your objection in such a case should be primarily to the law itself.

And surely there are laws you do agree with, yes? And in those cases where a law is just, and a violation of that law unjust, is it not right that the criminal be identified to the police?

 

[xjx388]

Reserving the right to publish the name of someone who produces highly newsworthy political commentary runs afoul of New York law? Color me skeptical. Need to see some case law on point.

I'm just reading the Coercion statute and then seeing CNN's statement that "we reserve the right. . . if any of that changes." That's obviously a threat that if HAS does post more racist stuff -something that HAS has a legal right to do- CNN will out him -which would reveal a secret that is likely to cause ridicule, etc.

It's interesting that when Team Trump had that whole thing with Morning Joe, many people were jumping on the Coercion statute and saying Team Trump was guilty at that time. I'm interested in why the Morning Joe situation might be coercion while the HAS situation would NOT be coercion.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'll leave the case law searches for those with the expertise and means to do so. I'm just a citizen trying to make sense of the law. I'm not even saying KFILE is guilty. I just want to understand the situation better. If KFILE is in NYC, why wouldn't they be liable under this statute?

 

[Minoosh]

I cannot agree with this at all. I would definitely fault you for outing @WeedBro420 merely because he happens to violate a number of unjust and irrational federal laws.

One man's pothead is another man's freedom fighter.

 

[d4m10n]

Your objection in such a case should be primarily to the law itself.

This is cheap evasion. Either you outsource your morality to the lawmakers or you don't.

My advice: Don't.

 

[d4m10n]

And surely there are laws you do agree with, yes?

Of course. I was perfectly content when the fratboys who violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act were outed to the general public.

...in those cases where a law is just, and a violation of that law unjust, is it not right that the criminal be identified to the police?

Sounds fine to me, even if the police blotter is publicly available.

 

[Belz...]

Why not both?

Because it fits one definition and not the other.

Curious how inflexible people are with internet slang....

Oh, so now we have to use a special definition?

 

[The Big Dog]

Because it fits one definition and not the other.



Oh, so now we have to use a special definition?

you are, I just gave you two cites... which you curiously deleted...

curiously.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is cheap evasion.

It's not really an evasion, it's mostly just off-topic. What to do about laws you fundamentally disagree with should be a separate thread, there's really no need to bring it into this thread.

 

[d4m10n]

I didn't ask about laws at all.

You brought them up in an effort to outsource ethics, iirc.

 

[Ziggurat]

I didn't ask about laws at all.

You brought them up in an effort to outsource ethics, iirc.

It's not outsourcing morality to tell the cops if someone made a credible threat on someone else's life. Remember, that was your scenario, not mine.

 

[d4m10n]

You are the one who is willing to make the ethics of doxing dependent upon the laws of the land. Not me.

 

[Ziggurat]

You are the one who is willing to make the ethics of doxing dependent upon the laws of the land. Not me.

Oh please. Quit with the pathetic games. You chose a hypothetical where the law in question is one that everybody here, including you, agrees with, and which I'm positive you believe must be enforced by the police in order to maintain a civil society. Then you pretended to not know why that required enforcement makes a difference.

Furthermore, the question of what to do about a legal prohibition which exists but you disagree with is actually quite different from the question of what to do about what is NOT legally prohibited but you wish it were. These are not, as you might presume, mirror images of each other.

Supposing I thought doxxing should be illegal. Would it then make sense to give the name of a doxxer to the police? No. Obviously not. It's not a crime, the police won't do anything. Until it becomes a crime, I cannot involve the police, no matter how much I might wish it to be a crime.

So I haven't outsources anything about morality. Rather, I have simply recognized a practical and obvious difference in situations which justifies differences in approach.

 

[d4m10n]

If you think doxing is justified if and only if the doxee is a criminal, you have outsourced your ethical decision making to lawmakers. May as well face up to it.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you think doxing is justified if and only if the doxee is a criminal, you have outsourced your ethical decision making to lawmakers. May as well face up to it.

Is this honestly the best argument you're capable of?

Telling the police the identity of a criminal is not doxxing. Stop pretending that it is. And again you chose an example where the morality of the law is undisputed, even by you. That I agree with the law in that case doesn't mean I do in all cases.