CNN and Doxxing

So basically if you didn't know, there is currently a big controversy over CNN and their reporting on a GIF that Donald Trump posted.

The GIF completely aside, its what happened afterwards thats in question. CNN tracked down the creator of said GIF (HanAssholeSolo) on reddit, then proceeded to Facebook stalk them to find out details like their real name and details. After a full apology, and denouncing of his old ways and deleting of much of his content that he posted on the subreddit The_Donald, CNN posted an article that stated.

"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," CNN said in its story. "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 article continued, suggesting a conditional agreement to protect the user's identity.

Basically they threatened to dox him unless he toed the line they set down

So what is your opinion on this?

Links to articles

This just makes them look bad. The guy made a joke; they had no right to track him down and threaten to release his identity as revenge.

Wut? Isn't that a crime?

Ted Cruz says it is. I don't know how right he is, but thats what people are claiming and he is one of them.

So did Julian Assange.

Yeah, I read about this earlier today. They crossed a line, and ironically enough, likely gave Trump more fuel for his anti-media attacks :/

It is hilarious how quickly the guy retracted. Apparently he's a poster on /r/the_donald so he was probably posting some pretty racist material. I guess he has a job to keep lol

Hate to do this, man, but this is a duplicate.

https://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/off-topic-5/cnn-accused-of-blackmailing-the-reddit-user-who-ma-1886181/#12

Sure does seem like a stupid and overreaching move. This HanSolo user is just like half the people on the internet photoshopping and altering images/videos with stuff just for the fun of it. In other words, doing what's common on the internet and shitposting. Just because the president tweets this little gif/video this user made (although that tweet just seems very stupid and unnecessary), doesn't make this internet user anything special. I've read that this user was like 15 years old (idk if it's true or not) or something and so of course what kid wouldn't be scared and delete all his stuff while apologizing. In fact, what adult wouldn't take a step back? Even if he/she is an adult, this is still messed up. It's basically what those trolls do to people when they say something they don't like or whatever. CNN better hope that user really isn't a kid and that this isn't illegal. I hope they get charged with something, LUL.

What they said doesnt really look like a threat. If anything it was a poorly worded disclaimer. I suppose we could see it as a "threat" if we really try, but then again we can also see half the stuff posted on the internet as threats if we choose to.

Didn't they essentially say that if he does this again, they will release his information? That is a threat.

Does this constitute as inciting violence?

Saying "we reserve the right to" is not the same as "we are going to". In fact it's kind of the opposite. In legal terms, saying "we reserve the right to" means something like "we are not going to, but not doing so doesnt mean we give up the right to do so in the future".

I'm not sure why they felt the need to say it. Like I said, it sounds like a poorly worded thing. But then again I'm not a lawyer and it's possible that some lawyer advised them to include it? I dont know.

Either way, it's bad PR in general for CNN. None of this makes them look good.

CNN has lost their collective minds. I went to their website last night and they had 'CNN uncovers identity of Trump gif maker' in some of the largest font I have ever seen on a news site. I kid you not.

Oh, I totally agree.

Coercion dont have to mean that you will carry the threat out as implying that there will be consequences if the victim dont comply to your demands is enough to justify the act of coercion.

Careful there Dragonborn_CT, CNN might feel the need to trace the makers of those gifs and then publish an article about it on their front page with your user name in bold. Along with them saying they didn't feel the need to publish the names of the tracked down people, because they apologized under pressure. All because they felt the gifs "incited violence".

LMAO what a laughable, pathetic piece of garbage journalism these days.

I dont see where this is going to lead to anything, no matter what Ted Cruz says on his twitter feed. Someone would first have to prove there really was some threat, and then they'd have to prove that the threat was of some real harm. Saying "we reserve the right to disclose your name" doesnt seem like it would qualify. But, whatever. I'm not a lawyer nor do I really care. This is just a distraction from the consequential and dangerous things going on in the world.

The one who will qualify the threat is the victim of coercion and how disclosing his personal information would affect him.

This information is clear in his written apology as detailed in his concern:

"...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."

So yeah, CNN knows this information for a fact and still imply that there is a possibility that they will published his name (regardless of his personal concern) if he didn't stop from making anti-CNN meme.

Can you point me to the relevant law?

Coercion only works if the victim perceive that the blackmailer could have the means/potential to harm him or disrupt his way of like .

So yeah the victim is the one who will qualify is he is threatened or not.

@mimisalome: You can't call people "stupid", don't post on the forums if you don't know the rules.

just flag me for it...

though i edited it out

@willpayton:

https://definitions.uslegal.com

"

Threat of Harm Law and Legal Definition

Threat of harm generally involves a perception of injury. Harm is physical or mental damage, an act or instance of injury, or a material and tangible detriment or loss to a person. The precise definition varies according to the context in which it is used. For example, in child welfare law, one definition is as follows:

"Threat of harm is defined as, "all actions, statements, written or non-verbal messages conveying threats of physical or mental injury which are serious enough to unsettle the child's mind. It includes: expressions of intent to inflict pain, injury, or punishment on the child."

In criminal law, a threat of harm varies according to the crime and state law. For instance, the crime of inciting a riot involves the threat of public alarm. The threat of harm involved in an assault may involve a reasonably perceived threat of physical injury. Pointing a banana at someone and threatening to shoot them would not be a reasonably perceived threat, however, if the banana was concealed in a pocket to appear as a weapon, the threat may be a reasonable perception of harm. In the crime of blackmail, the threat may be not only to harm the person being blackmailed, but a family member as well. Local statutes should be consulted to determine degrees of harm and imminent nature of harm required.

Coercion Law and Legal Definition

Coercion generally means to impose one's will on another by means of force or threats. Coercion may be accomplished through physical or psychological means. It may occur in a variety of contexts, such as unfair trade practices, which prohibits coercion to sell insurance in most states.

Definitions vary by state and federal laws. For example, one state defines coercion as a crime when a person compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he has a legal right to engage, by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will cause physical injury to a person or cause damage to property.

Wow, Willy is trying to defend this clear illegal and blackmailing bullshit. "They just worded it wrong, they had no clear intentions of using his identity as blackmail. Its not like they spent time and resources to track the gif maker's real identity down and get a apology for it... oh wait."

Low man.

It's being reported by some sites that CNN got the wrong guy.

If thats true then either CNN is falsely accusing someone (slander) of something they didnt commit or is creating a false narrative of the story (probably using a dummy Reddit account to act as a fake fall guy)

Both of which are clear attempt to fabricate false and unsubstantiated news.

"it's being reported by some sites"

uhmm, ok. It's also being reported by some sites that NASA is running a child slave colony on Mars.

Their producer already admitted to that.

@sirfizzwhizz:

Loading Video...

@boschepg said:

@sirfizzwhizz:

Loading Video...

LOLOL

"CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski, the reporter currently under fire for threatening to dox the alleged creator of President Donald Trump’s infamous WWE video, once spread false information about a man being a terrorist, after which said man killed himself."

https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/07/cnn-writer-boston-bomber/

Huh.. I was just thinking the name was familiar..

I don't see the problem here, journalists job is to find out about stuff. Is it really that different if they find some otherwise anonymous forum poster's identity than say find out a politician had a sexual encounter with someone other than their wife?

I think the problem here is not because they found him out (even though the act of snooping around ala typical paparazzi is being frowned upon by public in general and is often considered as ethically questionable).

The problem here is how CNN is using such personal information as a leverage to coerced a person from inhibiting himself from engaging and participating on an activity that is well within his constitutional rights (im assuming, like most people i believe, that he is an American citizen). As far as i know creating meme jokes are allowable act of freedom expression. I mean the meme concern is no worse than Kathy Griffin Trump's Decapitation "Art Piece".

But since there is a risks that his personal internet information going public (and the threat is pretty credible considering that he is up against a multi-billion dollar global media group and not just some village periodical) which could have unwanted implication with regards to his personal safety and reputation... now he must inhibit himself from creating anti-CNN meme (which again isnt against the law as far as i know).

I am not seeing this as a paparazzi-like instance, because to me that entails literally stalking someone physically with a camera to get pictures of them regardless of what they are doing. In this case, while I dont know for certain, it could just be down to tracking the poster down using his screen name and rolling a dice with a phonecall.

Yes it is within his rights to express himself as he wants. It is however also within CNN's rights to publish items that have a newsworthy quality to it. Like Gawker was run into the ground because it was deemed in a court that publishing a tape of Hulk Hogan having sex was not newsworthy. In this case CNN could simply have said they would name him as the maker of the meme... which is not illegal either, much like finding out who the street-artist Banksy really is is not a crime either.

I kinda see it as an argument whenever Freedom of Speech also means you are Freedom from Consequences of Speaking. Things like hatespeech, incitement of violence, revolution, threats and so on... those are things that can land you in jail or get you fined if anyone tells the police you did it. Now, this guy made this thing and put it on the echo-chamber that is the internet, somewhere he has to accept the risk of doing so. Like take John Oliver of the Last Week Tonight show, he recently did a story about the coal industry and was warned by one company about not making fun of or be even the slightest bit rude when describing their CEO... which John ofcourse did so without hesitation, and now hes been sued by that man, mostly because John highlighted how this guy didn't really care about miners safety or jobs as long as he could keep turning a profit.

I agree it sounds rather petty of CNN to track him down in this manner, but I weigh that up with how other stations would have reacted if it was them... like I imagine Fox and Briebrat would have the guys face on the 7 o clock news the moment they found out along with some bs narrative about how he kicks puppies for fun and whatnot.

Well like i said the issue here is not about whether CNN found out who created the meme or publishing his name

The issue here is how the CNN used the information as a leverage to coerce a person from inhibiting himself from creating an anti-CNN meme which is not unlawful and well within his rights.

Also ...honestly anyone who considered the Trump WWE meme as an act of "inciting violence" is really, really stretching it.

@outside_85:

Also just found this one out

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/legal-protections-anonymous-speech

It is well-settled that the U.S. First Amendment shelters the right to speak anonymously.

• Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182, 200 (1999) (invalidating, on First Amendment grounds, state statute requiring initiative petitioners to wear identification badges);
• Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 65 (1960) (holding anonymity protected under the First Amendment because forced "“identification and fear of reprisal might deter perfectly peaceful discussions of public matters of importance”").

These cases celebrate the important role played by anonymous or pseudonymous writings through history, from the literary efforts of Shakespeare and Mark Twain through the explicitly political advocacy of the Federalist Papers.

As the Supreme Court has held, “Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority,” that “exemplifies the purpose” of the First Amendment: “to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation...at the hand of an intolerant society.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995) (holding that an “author’s decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment”).

Therefore, courts must “be vigilant... [and] guard against undue hindrances to political conversations and the exchange of ideas.” Buckley, 525 U.S. at 192. This vigilant review “must be undertaken and analyzed on a case-by-case basis,” where the court’s “guiding principle is a result based on a meaningful analysis and a proper balancing of the equities and rights at issue.” Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d at 760-761. Moreover, that review must take place whether the speech in question takes the form of political pamphlets or Internet postings. Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997) (there is “no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment protection that should be applied to” the Internet).

But is it coercion? I mean, we dont know what CNN's representative has said to this person or what he said to them. From what I can read the guy made this ages ago and it's only blown up now when Trump used it in his tweet, he gave CNN an apology because it wasn't meant to be used in such a manner or with the context Trump gave it and simply said he had no intention of making similar content in the future. CNN already knows who he is and is simply holding onto that information if they need it in the future.

Legally... not really, because you have to consider what other people read into the picture, which I doubt Trump does before posting. Like Alex Jones went on his infamous Pizzagate rant, claiming there was a paedophilia ring operating out the back of a named pizza vendor... did he mean for someone to show up at that place with a gun? I doubt it. But thats what happened. Same is the case of that falsified Planned Parenthood video someone published, despite being debunked, a guy with a gun came into one clinic looking for dead babies...

The issue here is that Trump is the president, and you can't really do anything about him as a cable news station since he's practically immune to the law. What they can do however is find out who made the tweet and hear his story... which may have been all CNN wanted, rather than show up in front of his house in a black van with some big dudes in masks waiting for him?

Dude you are side tracking the discussion and is really stretching it

Those WWE meme's which was done for satirical (comedy) reasons for the viewing pleasures of people within their community that shared his politics and ideals

is not equal to Pizzagate (which is an actively vigilantism and witch hunt against suspected pedophiles.

"Legally... not really, because you have to consider what other people read into the picture, which I doubt Trump does before posting."

You cant be serious about this.

Anyway that is not how the law works (and thank goodness that it is). The law will not held you accountable for the actions and expressions of others people who perverted your benign, lawfully-made, well within your constitutional rights creations.

Else the parents could sue comic books and cartoons creators everytime there is kiddie mishap inspired by their works.

How is it stretching it exactly?

And some people do not see it as a joke. Especially not when it is coming from the President of the United States. Again Alex Jones in his devoice case has argued that he is playing a non-serious character on his radio show and that he is very different when he is not on the air... that same character Jones plays for fun and entertainment evidently got an armed man to show up inside a pizza-parlor.

Not yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if some nut actually attacked CNN at some point.

I am, because thats how propaganda works.

It wont, unless it finds out you were deliberately encouraging it to happen, but thats very difficult to prove.

They tried that against rockbands and backwards masking. It's something else when you graphically advocate violence in some way or form against a specific target.

From what I read here, whenever or not the right to remain anonymous is present is dependent on the case in question, not universally applied without thought.

And again, CNN is a news broadcaster, their business is reporting the facts and events. The question is whenever or not it is within the public interest to know who this guy is or not.

@outside_85:

And some people do not see it as a joke.

And some idiot might think that a microwave oven can be used to dry a wet cat, does that mean we should stop making microwave oven because there is a possibility that an imbecile exist that couldnt comprehend the difference between an oven and a blower?

Just because there is a snowflake moron that couldn't tell the difference between a satire (fake pro-wrestling none-the-less) and an actual violent act... should we now start censoring every comedies, skits, satires, pranks, memes, pro-wrestling?

Man even the novel 1986 didnt get so intellectually despotic as that.

And again, CNN is a news broadcaster, their business is reporting the facts and events. The question is whenever or not it is within the public interest to know who this guy is or not.

Nah... it is very clear that the author of the WWE meme is concern that if ever his personal information goes public it will have a direct consequences that will affect his personal safety because he often voiced out unpopular opinions.

In fact CNN know this:

"...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."

Essentially this is what the Protection for Anonymous Speech Law is protecting. Retaliation from oppressive majority just because you spout an unpopular opinion and CNN releasing his information in public is violation of his right to speak anonymously.

No, but perhaps you should put a lable on it?

And do you know it's supposed to be satirical in this case? Trumps been on record a dozen times or more about how CNN is mean and how it's fake news.

No 1986 got a lot worse by having a satellite to read everyone's minds and dispatch 'helpers' whenever someone thought of something devious.

Why is he concerned I might ask? If he is well within his rights to make a post like this, what is he afraid will happen if people knew he made a gif? Is he worried people will seek him out? That he will get fired from his job?

And like with asking the police for protection, it has to be measured if there actually is a threat against this person if his ID became known. As for public embarrassment... it really starts to sound like this guy is living in a democrat neighborhood and that this would be outing him as a closet-Trump supporter.

And regarding oppressive majority... is there one?

@outside_85:

And do you know it's supposed to be satirical in this case? Trumps been on record a dozen times or more about how CNN is mean and how it's fake news.

Why do keep on invoking Trump here?

Trump is irrelevant in this discussion considering the incident is between CNN and a meme creator.

How do we know it is satirical? have you ever watched (fake) pro-wrestling? have ever been exposed to the internet where memes much more worse than what he created is considered as a joke?

If anyone wants to make something out nothing from this obviously meant-for-trolling meme... then that someone has some serious psychological issues.

Why is he concerned I might ask? If he is well within his rights to make a post like this, what is he afraid will happen if people knew he made a gif? Is he worried people will seek him out? That he will get fired from his job?

Who knows what he is concerned about? Should we be concerned about that?

The fact is that he used an internet pseudonym because he thinks he needed it every time he spewed his personal opinions and post a meme is well within his rights..... you know.... just like what your are doing right now?

And like with asking the police for protection, it has to be measured if there actually is a threat against this person if his ID became known.

Thats sounds pretty stupid.... the one who will qualify if the threat is real or not is the person that is being subjected to coercion. Else how could coercion work if the victim dont know or cant asess that he is being threatened?

If someone barge in to your house and asked you to give up your money else they will kill you.,, would you pause and says "wait, lets call the police so he can assess if that threat is legitimate or not before i comply".

So what's your point? It doesn't make it NOT true. The thing that Trump posted doesn't match the one that guy posted. It's legit reason to believe that this isn't the guy and people should be aware that the identity of the creator is still questionable instead of "herp derb thar peple on the picture box said itz tru so it must be."

So basically you're worthlessly shit posting.

How can you say that? Did you see Chris Cuomo's now deleted tweet. Looks like a threat to 'out' him to me.

Looks to me as if CNN wanted to paint the guy as a bigot.

CNN is in the right. I don't see what the outrage is all about.