As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

The [Freedom of the Press] Will Not Be Abridged

12325272829

Posts

  • Options
    ArdolArdol Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    So, the whole CNN saga escalated:
    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.

    Seriously, the fuck? You are a multi-million dollar company threatening to doxx a guy unless he grovels? If he's dangerous just report him to the police, this is just scummy. As you might have guessed, that kicked the hornest's nest and Team Meme went all in against CNN.

    That's a pretty vague "threat." They simply stated that they reserve the right to publish his name should the story change further.

    Also lol memes being unleashed on CNN. I'm sure they're terrified. Where's that story about the guy who took his Trump memes on posters to a rally to support Trump and was driven away by the Neo Nazis because even they realized the memes just made the whole group look dumb as hell?

  • Options
    AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    edited July 2017
    Edit: So I thought he had apologized to CNN but it looks like he apologized on reddit:



    (Wall works for Buzzfeed)

    It's worth reading the apology to see how surreal this whole episode is--the fact that the President picked up his shitpost and sent it to the world. It's like if sometimes you didn't pick up your dog's poop when you walked him and one time Obama took a picture of you not doing that and the entire world saw it.

    Also fucked up: that this random guy is like "I'm so sorry, I never meant to hurt anybody, I'm not actually racist, I was just trying to be funny, I see now that words have meaning and actions have consequences and next time I will think first" and fucking Trump has not and won't ever say anything like that, even insincerely to cover his ass.

    Astaereth on
    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • Options
    Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    edited July 2017
    Spoiled for comment edit
    Astaereth wrote: »
    It sounds like when CNN said "hey you, we know you're the guy," he said to them personally, "Can you please not print my name? I'm sorry and I promise not to do it again." That CNN is making their continued protection of him dependent on his adhering to that deal doesn't seem like it rises to the level of coercion.
    Definition of Coercion

    the act, process, or power of coercing
    Definition of Coercing

    to compel to an act or choice

    Emissary42 on
  • Options
    GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited July 2017
    No. You're not reading the statute correctly. It would require CNN to have actively made the threat before the person made the request.

    Otherwise forcing anyone to adhere to a contract would be coercion
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    By saying they'll report that a man made Nazi memes that the President distributed to a wider audience if he continues to do so?

    They are doing him a (gigantic, undeserved) favor by not reporting his name, not coercing him.

    What favor, having full control of his life? It would have been better to just report his name and be done with it, this is just an attempt to manipulate someone to protect themselves, given that in the second that he goes public then he can go to Trump and the big Trumpkins for protection and to pay for legal advice.

    Not being exposed as a Nazi shitbag and his employer probably firing him, for starters.

    Yeah, in that scenario he gets announced on the morning and before sunset Milo and Cernovich are already on his house with their lawyers setting up a legal draft for him to sign against CNN and his employeer and the top post at /r/the_donald is a link to donate to his legal fund.

    CNN is protecting themselves by trying to not create a martyr. Is that simple.

    That would be coercion in New York

    It is therefore convenient that the author of the story is in New York.

    The joke is that their actions may be considered coercion against CNN by the same standard.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • Options
    AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    I have edited that post, dude, because it was based on a faulty assumption (the idea that he had proposed this deal to CNN, in which case it's no more coercion than me saying "If you keep my secret I'll pay you $100" or "If you act as my bodyguard I'll give you $500 a week" is blackmail or coercion).

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • Options
    Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    I have edited that post, dude, because it was based on a faulty assumption (the idea that he had proposed this deal to CNN, in which case it's no more coercion than me saying "If you keep my secret I'll pay you $100" or "If you act as my bodyguard I'll give you $500 a week" is blackmail or coercion).

    This will depend a great deal on CNN's reporting and communications behind the story, which are now wide-open to a legal case. What part of "they fucked up so badly that they're very possibly criminally liable" is so hard to understand?

  • Options
    AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    I have edited that post, dude, because it was based on a faulty assumption (the idea that he had proposed this deal to CNN, in which case it's no more coercion than me saying "If you keep my secret I'll pay you $100" or "If you act as my bodyguard I'll give you $500 a week" is blackmail or coercion).

    This will depend a great deal on CNN's reporting and communications behind the story, which are now wide-open to a legal case. What part of "they fucked up so badly that they're very possibly criminally liable" is so hard to understand?

    The part where I'm not disagreeing with you?

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • Options
    Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt (effective against Russian warships) Registered User regular
    edited July 2017
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    I have edited that post, dude, because it was based on a faulty assumption (the idea that he had proposed this deal to CNN, in which case it's no more coercion than me saying "If you keep my secret I'll pay you $100" or "If you act as my bodyguard I'll give you $500 a week" is blackmail or coercion).

    This will depend a great deal on CNN's reporting and communications behind the story, which are now wide-open to a legal case. What part of "they fucked up so badly that they're very possibly criminally liable" is so hard to understand?
    The part where the only reasonable reaction to your post is an eye-roll and vigorous masturbatory gesture.

    No they didn't, stop being so silly about it. I know it's hot to be an internet lawyer these days, but this is just so _silly._

    Gabriel_Pitt on
  • Options
    Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    edited July 2017
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    I have edited that post, dude, because it was based on a faulty assumption (the idea that he had proposed this deal to CNN, in which case it's no more coercion than me saying "If you keep my secret I'll pay you $100" or "If you act as my bodyguard I'll give you $500 a week" is blackmail or coercion).

    This will depend a great deal on CNN's reporting and communications behind the story, which are now wide-open to a legal case. What part of "they fucked up so badly that they're very possibly criminally liable" is so hard to understand?

    The part where I'm not disagreeing with you?

    My bad. My patience is a bit thin considering the leaps some here make to justify threadbare assertions, for example (spoilered because EXTREMELY off-topic)
    Seriously, this will raise the blood pressure of some people on here. Turn back now if you don't want that.
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    I have edited that post, dude, because it was based on a faulty assumption (the idea that he had proposed this deal to CNN, in which case it's no more coercion than me saying "If you keep my secret I'll pay you $100" or "If you act as my bodyguard I'll give you $500 a week" is blackmail or coercion).

    This will depend a great deal on CNN's reporting and communications behind the story, which are now wide-open to a legal case. What part of "they fucked up so badly that they're very possibly criminally liable" is so hard to understand?
    The part where the only reasonable reaction to your post is an eye-roll and vigorous masturbatory gesture.

    No they didn't, stop being so silly about it. I know it's hot to be an internet lawyer these days, but this is just so _silly._

    edit preamble: bolded as emphasis.

    I could say a lot of things about a certain topic that rhymes with Prussia people post on here about, which have almost all been either wrong or disproved so far. I don't because I know people here don't want to hear it, which is deeply ironic considering the purpose of the forum, and I'm hardly the first person to give up commenting on it (confirmed by several PMs) because of how frothingly rabid it has become. Their time would be better spent focusing on more productive pursuits that have a structural integrity greater than marshmallow.

    final edit: grammar

    Emissary42 on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    "Oh I didn't mean it when I said that entire races should be killed. Whoopsie!" is not exactly credible to me.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    edited July 2017
    Goumindong wrote: »
    No. You're not reading the statute correctly. It would require CNN to have actively made the threat before the person made the request.

    Otherwise forcing anyone to adhere to a contract would be coercion
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    By saying they'll report that a man made Nazi memes that the President distributed to a wider audience if he continues to do so?

    They are doing him a (gigantic, undeserved) favor by not reporting his name, not coercing him.

    What favor, having full control of his life? It would have been better to just report his name and be done with it, this is just an attempt to manipulate someone to protect themselves, given that in the second that he goes public then he can go to Trump and the big Trumpkins for protection and to pay for legal advice.

    Not being exposed as a Nazi shitbag and his employer probably firing him, for starters.

    Yeah, in that scenario he gets announced on the morning and before sunset Milo and Cernovich are already on his house with their lawyers setting up a legal draft for him to sign against CNN and his employeer and the top post at /r/the_donald is a link to donate to his legal fund.

    CNN is protecting themselves by trying to not create a martyr. Is that simple.

    That would be coercion in New York

    It is therefore convenient that the author of the story is in New York.

    The joke is that their actions may be considered coercion against CNN by the same standard.

    Exhibit A1

    Exhibit A2


    The first tweet is at 6:13PM, the second at 6:58PM (displayed hour may vary based on time zone). The first tweet claims the apology was after they identified and contacted the guy, the second claims it was before. Sloppy.

    Emissary42 on
  • Options
    knitdanknitdan In ur base Killin ur guysRegistered User regular
    edited July 2017
    In other words, kaczynski got new information and updated corrected the story.

    knitdan on
    “I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
    -Indiana Solo, runner of blades
  • Options
    Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    And now I'm hearing from a friend that the_Donald mods censored and deleted that apology, wtf?
    Can anyone confirm?

  • Options
    Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    edited July 2017
    knitdan wrote: »
    In other words, kaczynski got new information and updated corrected the story.

    If so, in such a way that creates more doubt and opens CNN to significant attack after a solid month of negative press with regards to the network and its staff.

    Emissary42 on
  • Options
    Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    edited July 2017
    And now I'm hearing from a friend that the_Donald mods censored and deleted that apology, wtf?
    Can anyone confirm?

    It looks like that's accurate. Some tweets had links to a second thread, converting it over to ceddit implies it was the same content.

    Emissary42 on
  • Options
    hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    I really need one of Orphane/P10's bizarre emojis right now to express how much my head hurts over all this right now.


    I will say, I suspect CNN was just being really super-fucking-honest about things, not that they were, you know, trying to coerce anything. They had some sort of internal discussion wherein they decided not to out the guy, and then an editor figured somebody was going to ask why or whether they'd be stuck if someone else outed him and whatever, so they just added a line that was intended to communicate, "This is what we're doing RIGHT NOW, but we might change our minds later, because this is pretty new fucking territory to us too."

    Why they didn't just out him, I dunno. Not sure why CNN feels obligated to follow Reddit's doxxing rules. My general impression is that most news agencies don't print people's Reddit usernames unless they have no idea who the real person is behind it all.

  • Options
    hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited July 2017
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    No. You're not reading the statute correctly. It would require CNN to have actively made the threat before the person made the request.

    Otherwise forcing anyone to adhere to a contract would be coercion
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    By saying they'll report that a man made Nazi memes that the President distributed to a wider audience if he continues to do so?

    They are doing him a (gigantic, undeserved) favor by not reporting his name, not coercing him.

    What favor, having full control of his life? It would have been better to just report his name and be done with it, this is just an attempt to manipulate someone to protect themselves, given that in the second that he goes public then he can go to Trump and the big Trumpkins for protection and to pay for legal advice.

    Not being exposed as a Nazi shitbag and his employer probably firing him, for starters.

    Yeah, in that scenario he gets announced on the morning and before sunset Milo and Cernovich are already on his house with their lawyers setting up a legal draft for him to sign against CNN and his employeer and the top post at /r/the_donald is a link to donate to his legal fund.

    CNN is protecting themselves by trying to not create a martyr. Is that simple.

    That would be coercion in New York

    It is therefore convenient that the author of the story is in New York.

    The joke is that their actions may be considered coercion against CNN by the same standard.

    Exhibit A1

    Exhibit A2


    The first tweet is at 6:13PM, the second at 6:58PM (displayed hour may vary based on time zone). The first tweet claims the apology was after they identified and contacted the guy, the second claims it was before. Sloppy.

    The timeline seems pretty clear from the actual article, if you read it instead of just the tweets:
    Reddit user "HanA**holeSolo" first shared the GIF last Wednesday of Trump pummeling a wrestler with CNN's logo imposed on his face. CNN could find no earlier instance of the GIF. The GIF was later edited into a video with sound and tweeted by the President on Sunday.

    On Reddit, "HanA**holeSolo" took credit for inspiring the tweet. Soon after, "HanA**holeSolo's" other posts on Reddit, some of which included racist and anti-Semitic imagery, quickly circulated on social media.

    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.

    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. On Tuesday, "HanA**holeSolo" posted his apology on the subreddit /The_Donald and deleted all of his other posts. ...

    After posting his apology, "HanA**holeSolo" called CNN's KFile and confirmed his identity. In the interview, "HanA**holeSolo" sounded nervous about his identity being revealed and asked to not be named out of fear for his personal safety and for the public embarrassment it would bring to him and his family.

    CNN left a voicemail, saying that they were CNN. Redditor figured the jig was up, and apologized. CNN then actually spoke to Redditor. Both tweets are true. If they're misleading, well, they're 140 characters each, published extemporaneously.

    hippofant on
  • Options
    Waffles or whateverWaffles or whatever Previously known as, I shit you not, "Waffen" Registered User regular
    edited July 2017
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Edit: So I thought he had apologized to CNN but it looks like he apologized on reddit:



    (Wall works for Buzzfeed)

    It's worth reading the apology to see how surreal this whole episode is--the fact that the President picked up his shitpost and sent it to the world. It's like if sometimes you didn't pick up your dog's poop when you walked him and one time Obama took a picture of you not doing that and the entire world saw it.

    Also fucked up: that this random guy is like "I'm so sorry, I never meant to hurt anybody, I'm not actually racist, I was just trying to be funny, I see now that words have meaning and actions have consequences and next time I will think first" and fucking Trump has not and won't ever say anything like that, even insincerely to cover his ass.

    He's only sorry because he got caught and that his trail of racist, vile posts could affect his marketability on getting a solid career post whatever the fuck he is doing at this time. In his case, because he apologized in a cohesive manner makes it sounds like he wants to actually be a productive member of society one day.

    My concern is tomorrow now. Trump is more than likely to jump on this tweet and use it as, "Liberal Media bullies people on internet" and will use it to ramp up A. Attention of T_D on Reddit and B. Stir the liberal tears/hate pot. Either way, the outcome of it isn't good.

    Waffles or whatever on
  • Options
    HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    The Trump administration is currently seeking all states to turn over voter registration info, including sensitive stuff like SSN's. So if he opens his mouth about CNN NOT disclosing this person's identity, he's a fucking asshole as usual.

  • Options
    Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    The Trump administration is currently seeking all states to turn over voter registration info, including sensitive stuff like SSN's. So if he opens his mouth about CNN NOT disclosing this person's identity, he's a fucking asshole as usual.

    I doubt the administration gets involved in this, though odds are very good the administration gets some form of voter rolls from all of the states eventually. It mostly boils down to the Voting Rights Act and especially the 2006 amendments to the law, which added a lot of neutral federal oversight mechanisms. Let me know if you want me to expand on this in the jeff sessions/voting rights thread.

  • Options
    ZekZek Registered User regular
    No one knows whether CNN threatened him (implicitly or otherwise) in their initial communication. I somewhat doubt it, but it's not impossible. However it's clear that after receiving their message, this guy was scared that they were going to expose him, and pulled out all the stops in his Reddit apology as an olive branch before he called them to convince them to resolve it amicably.

    However, what is very clear is the implied threat that CNN has now made in this article:
    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.

    There's probably not a single person in The_Donald who reads that and doesn't perceive the danger of CNN exposing their personal information if they attract too much attention and don't show sufficient remorse. I would be very surprised if the author did not intend it to be taken that way.

  • Options
    Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    Zek wrote: »
    No one knows whether CNN threatened him (implicitly or otherwise) in their initial communication. I somewhat doubt it, but it's not impossible. However it's clear that after receiving their message, this guy was scared that they were going to expose him, and pulled out all the stops in his Reddit apology as an olive branch before he called them to convince them to resolve it amicably.

    However, what is very clear is the implied threat that CNN has now made in this article:
    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.

    There's probably not a single person in The_Donald who reads that and doesn't perceive the danger of CNN exposing their personal information if they attract too much attention and don't show sufficient remorse. I would be very surprised if the author did not intend it to be taken that way.

    Forget Reddit, if you haven't seen twitter trending for the past few hours, you haven't seen the half of it. Anyone bold enough to peek at some of the Chans can also spot that they're at least toying with how to fuck with CNN and to what extent.

  • Options
    ProhassProhass Registered User regular
    edited July 2017
    im torn, on the one hand yeah its pretty messy and shady and maybe stepping toes out of line. On the other hand everything that has happened up to this point

    Worrying about how Trumpites will perceive this is pointless, they already consider CNN the vanguard of the evil cabal of jewish Illuminati. This isnt about giving them ammunition, fuck them, they get ammunition from their asses. Its about maintaining integrity for our own sake and our own dignity and purposes

    Prohass on
  • Options
    GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    I have edited that post, dude, because it was based on a faulty assumption (the idea that he had proposed this deal to CNN, in which case it's no more coercion than me saying "If you keep my secret I'll pay you $100" or "If you act as my bodyguard I'll give you $500 a week" is blackmail or coercion).

    This will depend a great deal on CNN's reporting and communications behind the story, which are now wide-open to a legal case. What part of "they fucked up so badly that they're very possibly criminally liable" is so hard to understand?
    If. IF they fucked up (which you have in no way shown in the slightest nor shown that anyone involved on the other side is capable of making a case) then the maximum fine by statute you have claimed is $1000

    I am sure they are quaking in their boots

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Options
    Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    I have edited that post, dude, because it was based on a faulty assumption (the idea that he had proposed this deal to CNN, in which case it's no more coercion than me saying "If you keep my secret I'll pay you $100" or "If you act as my bodyguard I'll give you $500 a week" is blackmail or coercion).

    This will depend a great deal on CNN's reporting and communications behind the story, which are now wide-open to a legal case. What part of "they fucked up so badly that they're very possibly criminally liable" is so hard to understand?
    If. IF they fucked up (which you have in no way shown in the slightest nor shown that anyone involved on the other side is capable of making a case) then the maximum fine by statute you have claimed is $1000

    I am sure they are quaking in their boots

    I've demonstrated it to exactly the same extent you have to the contrary, with an extra garnish of fuck-ups from the story's author via personal tweets. I'm certain that CNN is actively giving no fucks, because otherwise the author and his editor's tweets would all be gone up to several weeks ago. If CNN is confident they can win, more power to them. I doubt it will end that way, and with the current headwind they're facing every additional screw-up, real or imagined, ablates what little remains of their reputation.

  • Options
    GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    No. You have not. There is nothing that suggests they would be liable in the slightest. This is goosey town and your assertions are a goose bus right to town center.

    And what headwind? Liberatas is not an issue. CNN's reputation is better than it's ever been! Do you not know this? Are you the President?

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Options
    SpaffySpaffy Fuck the Zero Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    No. You're not reading the statute correctly. It would require CNN to have actively made the threat before the person made the request.

    Otherwise forcing anyone to adhere to a contract would be coercion

    So would enforcing the law, as it happens.

    ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
    Steam: adamjnet
  • Options
    mxmarksmxmarks Registered User regular
    As someone with over a decade of TV news experience they didn't publish his name because he has a mother, father, sister, brother, child, wife, husband or any combination of the above that would be negativity impacted by that - and it's just not worth it to ruin the lives of people who aren't even involved over reddit shit posting. It adds nothing of value to the story.

    Them saying they could publish it in the future is them covering their own asses in case this dude decides to go to war with CNN (which it seems like he won't), get a medal of Honor from Trump for fighting the media, or uses his CNN fame to launch a career as the next Richard Spencer. That way he can't say "They said they'd keep my name secret and they didn't! They can't be trusted."

    That's it.

    PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
  • Options
    TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    So, Scott Taylor, Congressman from VA, is the first to go for the throat:

  • Options
    SleepSleep Registered User regular
    That's not out of line though.

    Nothing stops them from revealing the information.

    Literally, freedom of the press means they can, at any time, release all that information.

    that's why you don't pick fights with newspapers.

    It isn't ever an uncommon trope to see the reporter saying "do x or I print y". That's like an archetypical play.

    If the guy had any convictions in his shit post ideals he'd say, "Fuck it, print my name"

    That they are giving him a chance to say "nah please don't" is called being nice. They could have just printed his name without reaching out to him for comment.

  • Options
    DeliciousTacosDeliciousTacos Registered User regular
    And now I'm hearing from a friend that the_Donald mods censored and deleted that apology, wtf?
    Can anyone confirm?

    Yep, they delete EVERYTHING that isn't straight-up fawning over their "god emperor". America's safest place

  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    There's nothing illegal about punishing his name

  • Options
    NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    I find it hard to feel sympathy for some racist shitbag being embarassed about their opinion.

  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    In case you hadn't noticed decency and standards is an outdated idea

  • Options
    CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    If they didn't intend to print his name, they should have just not mentioned that they had it. That way it couldn't be understood as a threat.

  • Options
    TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Ben Shapiro, journalist that gets his fair share of anti-semitic tweets:

  • Options
    mxmarksmxmarks Registered User regular
    This is a no-win situation because the public is insane right now.

    They didn't threaten anyone and it is a really, really disingenuous read of what happened to even think they did. There's nothing to even threaten anyone over!

    The president tweeted a video of CNN being beaten up.
    CNN looked into who made that video (was it someone on the white house staff? did taxpayer money pay for this video?)
    CNN finds out it's from Reddit.

    Now, a new story can unfold. Who posts this kind of stuff to Reddit? Did this person make it FOR the president? How did the president find this video? Is there a bigger agenda here or is this just a one off video that went viral?

    And from a NON-NEWS and more SAFETY OF PEOPLE WHO WORK AT CNN side: Does this person do this A LOT? Have they made threats against CNN?

    So CNN reaches out to the guy, probably saying they just want to talk. I can tell you with 1000% certainty - CNN gives ZERO fucks if this person apologizes. Their feelings aren't hurt and they do not care. They get things much, much worse sent directly to them every day.

    The guy probably shits himself and realizes this is bad. They've found his other posts and his anonymity is gone. Guy reaches out to CNN, and probably BEGS them not to publish his name.

    Since CNN is actually in the business of "Free Speech" I highly doubt they see any reason to publish this guys name outside of spite at this point. They probably had a lengthy discussion with this dude, and they really did find this to just be some troll. He's not in the KKK, he's not leading some racist movement, he's literally a nobody who posts heinous shit (like the kind they get directly emailed to them every single day!), and there's zero reason to give this person any more attention.

    Attention mind you, that could do more damage to THEM than to HIM in today's climate. Headlines like "CNN PUBLISHES REDDIT USERS NAME-MANS LIFE IN TURMOIL!" are bad. We're in the era of "locker room talk". This racist shitbag is going to get SYMPATHY from half the country if mean old CNN costs him his job. His house. His family's medical bills. ANYTHING. Get ready for this dude to be front and center on Hannity talking about how he was just "having some fun" online and now his whole life is ruined because CNN publicly attacked him.

    It also - from a journalistic standpoint - adds ZERO to the story to know this guys name. Other than all of us going "Haha, fuck you Brian Racistface, you lost your job because youre a racist troll.", no one gains anything. There's nothing interesting about a nobody. There's no story there.

    If it was made by Trump's kids, or Obama's kids, or Obama himself, or even a local mayor they'd sure as shit publish the name because THATS a story.

    Which is why, in the end - to both explain why they made the decision to leave him anonymous and to cover their own asses - they said that after investigating, with the facts as they are right now, there's no reason to publish the name and they won't unless things change.

    Now, if 6 months from now this guy starts up FuckCNN.com and it starts getting traction - suddenly, THATS a story! The guy who runs FuckCNN.com created racist imagery and made a video the president retweeted! If this guy runs for office somewhere THAT may be a story too! If he just minds his own buisness and really learned his lesson - there's no point.

    We've hit this bizarre point where the left is mad they didn't reveal his name so he can be PUNISHED! and the right is mad because CNN is "BLACKMAILING HIM!" (which logically means they think he should be free to speak and reveal himself!) - and in reality I bet the dude is SUPER grateful to CNN and wants everyone to stop.

    PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
  • Options
    mxmarksmxmarks Registered User regular
    I will say I'm also pretty riled up because I have good friends who work for CNN in DC and they go to great lengths now to not wear any branding because people shout shit at them and they've had to keep upping security at the building because shit is out of control.

    PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Frankly they should have just released his name instead of being coy.

  • Options
    milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    The phrasing was dumb, and if they legitimately wanted to not release his name they should have just not said anything or said out of respect to his sincerity/family/community, we aren't releasing it.

    I ate an engineer
This discussion has been closed.