CNN blackmails the creator of the video Trump tweeted out recently

[Ein]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html
 

"CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change."

CNN is effectively gagging someone's right to freedom of speech/expression and threatening to reveal his personal information should he does anything they don't like.

[Ein]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html
 

"CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change."

CNN is effectively gagging someone's right to freedom of speech/expression and threatening to reveal his personal information should he does anything they don't like.

[Azz]

I actually despise CNN. They are a revolting company that don't deserve the title of 'News Agency'. And apparently the poor guy is 15. Atrocious.

[Captain Karnage]

danm, I was just about to start this topic

this is a new low, they we're about to dox a guy just for a meme, now he's going to have to make a new identity online

3 minutes ago, Azz said:

I actually despise CNN. They are a revolting company that don't deserve the title of 'News Agency'. And apparently the poor guy is 15. Atrocious.

probably the reason they didn't dox him

seriously fuck CNN

Edited July 5, 2017 by Captain Karnage

[Nobody]

Is it against the law for CNN to reveal his information? If it's not, then they're not limiting his freedom of speech. It might be a shitty thing, but if it doesn't involve a crime or the government, then it has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech. You people really need to know what freedom of speech means. Actually, i will be nice enough and say it myself, freedom of speech means being able to say something without suffering retaliation from the State. CNN is not the State. The guy can say whatever he wants, the consequence will be CNN publishing his name, which is not something illegal, nor has anything to do with the State.

Just to make it clear, i'm in no way condoning the way CNN handled this, but this situation has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Nobody

[Captain Karnage]

Just now, Nobody said:

Is it against the law for CNN to reveal his information? If it's not, then they're not limiting their freedom of speech. It might be a shitty thing, but if doesn't involve a crime or the government, then it has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech. You people really need to know what freedom of speech means. Actually, i will be nice enough and say it myself, freedom of speech means being able to say something without suffering retaliation from the State. CNN is not the State.

it is illegal, your releasing information on a private citizen. Free speech ends when you put people in physical danger(yelling fire in a theatre), or releasing non-public information (i.e my birthday 7/24 is public knoweledge, my name and adress are NOT), not when somebody's feelings get hurt

it's absolutely an ethical issue issue, there's a danm good reason a lot of people use online names. It's so crazy people, or people who just hate us, can't find us, ruin our lives, or blow our brains out.

[Nobody]

10 minutes ago, Captain Karnage said:

it is illegal, your releasing information on a private citizen. Free speech ends when you put people in physical danger(yelling fire in a theatre), or releasing non-public information (i.e my birthday 7/24 is public knoweledge, my name and adress are NOT), not when somebody's feelings get hurt

it's absolutely an ethical issue issue, there's a danm good reason a lot of people use online names. It's so crazy people, or people who just hate us, can't find us, ruin our lives, or blow our brains out.

This has nothing to do with someone's feelings getting hurt nor with free speech. Again, if it has nothing to do with the State, then it has nothing to do with free speech. If CNN published his name, and it was indeed illegal, he'd be able to sue CNN and, if that's found to be illegal, there would be legal consequences to CNN. There's no legal consequences for the guy saying whatever he wants. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech if it doesn't involve the State. It might be an ethical issue, but again, if the State isn't limiting someone's right to say something (and the State certainly isn't in this exemple), then it has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Nobody

[Captain Karnage]

5 minutes ago, Nobody said:

This has nothing to do with someone's feelings getting hurt nor with free speech. Again, if it has nothing to do with the State, then it has nothing to do with free speech. If CNN published his name, and it was indeed illegal, he'd be able to sue and, if it's found to be illegal, there would be legal consequences. There's no legal consequences for the guy saying whatever he wants. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech if it doesn't involve the State.

DID YOU NOT JUST MENTION FREE SPEECH.

are you just upset that the guy made a good meme and nothing happened to him?

it's illegal to release that information on him, a private citizen and a minor to boot, they blackmailed him into an appology, it's illegal and immoral

[Tryhard]

I suppose we're also going to forget that a CNN journalist (not sure if it was the one who did this - edit: pretty sure it was), received death threats, which is also very much against the "freedom of speech" exceptions.

CNN is shite, and Donald Trump is shite. It's like they were made for each other.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Tryhard

[Nobody]

10 minutes ago, Captain Karnage said:

DID YOU NOT JUST MENTION FREE SPEECH.

are you just upset that the guy made a good meme and nothing happened to him?

it's illegal to release that information on him, a private citizen and a minor to boot, they blackmailed him into an appology, it's illegal and immoral

What i meant to say was that this case had nothing to do with free speech.

I'm not upset about anything, i'm actually very calm, this issue has nothing to do with me, and i don't care about what happens to anyone involved in it. I'm just correcting whoever believes the person's free speech is being affected.

again, I ask you, which retaliation is the State imposing to the guy? Because if the answer is none (which it is), then his freedom of speech is not being affected. If CNN commits a crime against him, he can sue them. How is this man's freedom of speech being limited if the State is taking no action against him and freedom of speech is, by definition, the State not preventing someone from saying something? I'm not asking about whether what CNN did was a crime or not, because CNN is not the State and hence this has nothing to do with freedom of Speech. If CNN commited a crime against him, he can sue them. 

People need to stop misusing "freedom of speech". If the State is not limiting someone's rights to say something, then it does not have anything to do with freedom of speech. Again, how is the State (not CNN, the State), limiting this guy's speech?

Edited July 5, 2017 by Nobody

[Captain Karnage]

5 minutes ago, Nobody said:

again, I ask you, which retaliation is the State imposing to the guy? Because if the andwer is none, then his freedom of speech is not being affected. If CNN commits a crime against him, he can sue them. How is this man's freedom of speech being limited if the State is taking no action against him and freedom of speech is, by definition, the State not preventing someone from saying something? I'm not asking about whether what CNN did was a crime or not, because CNN is not the State and hence this has nothing to do with freedom of Speech. If CNN commited a crime against him, he can sue them. 

what did the poster of the meme do wrong is my question to you?

if they do release his information somebody at CNN would likely face jail time

this is an odd case as I've seen several cases over doxing done by individuals, but I haven't found any cases where it was done by a corporation

[Nobody]

1 minute ago, Captain Karnage said:

what did the poster of the meme do wrong is my question to you?

Nothing? Where did i imply he did something wrong?

The only thing i said in my entire time in this topic was that his freedom of speech was not affected by this, considering the State didn't do anything against him. I don't understand what you're going on about.

[Captain Karnage]

4 minutes ago, Nobody said:

Nothing? Where did i imply he did something wrong?

The only thing i said in my entire time in this topic was that his freedom of speech was not affected by this, considering the State didn't do anything against him. I don't understand what you're going on about.

you mentioned

 

1 hour ago, Nobody said:

Is it against the law for CNN to reveal his information? If it's not, then they're not limiting his freedom of speech.

which I interpreted as you defending CNN's action on the matter

edit: I misread this

Edited July 5, 2017 by Captain Karnage

[Tryhard]

9 minutes ago, Captain Karnage said:

what did the poster of the meme do wrong is my question to you?

if they do release his information somebody at CNN would likely face jail time

this is an odd case as I've seen several cases over doxing done by individuals, but I haven't found any cases where it was done by a corporation

It was done by an individual journalist, but published by CNN for what that's worth. Whether CNN chooses to protect their employee is on their own head. A username online right now isn't anything.

Now this guy could likely go ahead and CNN probably wouldn't do shit if they did continue. It's almost like saying that you have tapes of a private conversation to scare someone to keep quiet. And this person actually is part of the US government, hmm.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Tryhard

[Roflolxp54]

Freedom of expression means that the government and government agencies cannot prevent the ordinary people from speaking out about or against said government, such as in the forms of protests, criticism, satire, and parody.

That said, for CNN to accurately figure out the identity of the creator of the Tweet (which makes Twitter seem a lot less safe) and have the willingness to publish it, even without his consent...

There's something wrong with that; the user is 15 years of age. As he is not of legal age, neither he nor CNN can legally release his details to the public - the user's parents/guardians would have to get a consent form and agree to that first IIRC.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Roflolxp54

[Hardin]

I think CNN's treatment of him has been more than fair. Once Trump shared that gif, he became a person of public interest, and was entirely fair game to report on. 

[Rapier]

5 hours ago, Nobody said:

Is it against the law for CNN to reveal his information? If it's not, then they're not limiting his freedom of speech. It might be a shitty thing, but if it doesn't involve a crime or the government, then it has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech. You people really need to know what freedom of speech means. Actually, i will be nice enough and say it myself, freedom of speech means being able to say something without suffering retaliation from the State. CNN is not the State. The guy can say whatever he wants, the consequence will be CNN publishing his name, which is not something illegal, nor has anything to do with the State.

Just to make it clear, i'm in no way condoning the way CNN handled this, but this situation has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

It is not true that the concept of freedom of speech is limited to suffering retaliation from the State, and it is not particularly hard to think of counterexamples (as in, "if you say X, I'll punch you or reveal something embarassing/risky/private about you" is a deliberate form of violating one's freedom of speech through coercion without the State having anything to do with that). The concept you showed is too narrow and limited to be accepted as a valid one.

What they did was a violation of one's freedom of speech because there is a threat/coercitive method for keeping someone's mouth shut, it matters nothing that it is not the State doing this sort of persecution.

Also, about this case, isn't this kid's privacy a right and violating it by [possibly] showing his address a crime of invasion of privacy in the US?

Edited July 6, 2017 by Rapier

[Nobody]

23 minutes ago, Rapier said:

It is not true that the concept of freedom of speech is limited to suffering retaliation from the State, and it is not particularly hard to think of counterexamples (as in, "if you say X, I'll punch you or reveal something embarassing/risky/private about you" is a deliberate form of violating one's freedom of speech through coercion without the State having anything to do with that). The concept you showed is too narrow and limited to be accepted as a valid one.

What they did was a violation of one's freedom of speech because there is a threat/coercitive method for keeping someone's mouth shut, it matters nothing that it is not the State doing this sort of persecution.

Also, about this case, isn't this kid's privacy a right and violating it by [possibly] showing his address a crime of invasion of privacy in the US?

That's not a violation of free speech. If someone treatens you by force, then you can sue them for assault. If someone reveals something embarrassing about you, then it's not a crime. Having something embarrassing/risky/private revealed is not a legal retaliation. Freedom of Speech is by definition related to legal retaliation. If there's no legal retaliation because of something you said, then it's not a vialotion of freedom of speech, by definition.

This kid can sue CNN if he feel his privacy is at risky. Still has nothing to do with freedom of speech, since he's not facing legal charges for anything he said. 

As long as it's not the State coercing or threatening you, then by definition it's not a violation of freedom of speech. And BTW, if the person, company or whatever threatening you is doing so by illegal means, then you can sue them. If they're doing it by legal means, then there's nothing wrong with it from a legal point of view. You say something they don't like, they do something completely legal you don't like, both within their rights to free speech. 

Following your logic, if someone stops talking to another person because they said something they didn't like, then they're violationg that person's free speech. It makes no sense. Even about the embarrassing/risky/private thing: Isn't it in someone's free speech right to reveal that if that's legal? Wouldn't it be a violation of free speech if the State forbid that? 

Let's go with a very simple exemple: Someone saw you cheating test. That person says "if you don't give me 50 dollars, I'll tell everyone you cheated on that test". Your freedom of speech is not at a risk in here. It's that person's right to tell everyone you cheated on the test, regardless of him asking you for money or not. It might be on your interest to pay him money to keep his mouth shut, but it's by no means a restriction on your freedom of speech, since you're not facing a risk of suffering legal repression due to that, and the person blackmailing you has the right to say what he knows regardless of your feelings on that matter.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Nobody

[Rapier]

Ok, we need to clear some things before progressing with this discussion. Freedom of speech is about allowing the expression of opinions and ideas without the threat of coercion and repression (through force). Freedom of speech, taken to the legal and political field, is allowing the expression of opinions and ideas without the threat of having those rights violated through State coercion and repression. You are using the later as the only definition for freedom of speech, but it is only freedom of speech taken into law/politics. The definition of freedom of speech is much broader than your narrow view and exceeds the limitations you're imposing.

Can you really say that this case does not involve a threat to one's freedom of speech when they threatened him if he were to continue "saying" what he did? It might not be a formal or legal restriction of freedom of speech, but it is still a material threat to one's freedom of speech. Things do not need to be formal to be true.

[Nobody]

10 minutes ago, Rapier said:

Ok, we need to clear some things before progressing with this discussion. Freedom of speech is about allowing the expression of opinions and ideas without the threat of coercion and repression (through force). Freedom of speech, taken to the legal and political field, is allowing the expression of opinions and ideas without the threat of having those rights violated through State coercion and repression. You are using the later as the only definition for freedom of speech, but it is only freedom of speech taken into law/politics. The definition of freedom of speech is much broader than your narrow view and exceeds the limitations you're imposing.

Can you really say that this case does not involve a threat to one's freedom of speech when they threatened him if he were to continue "saying" what he did? It might not be a formal or legal restriction of freedom of speech, but it is still a material threat to one's freedom of speech. Things do not need to be formal to be true.

to me it just seems like you're mistaking freedom of speech with freedom from consequences. Everything someone does has consequences. Again, if someone blackmail someone through illegal means, then they will have to face legal repercussions. If they're doing it through legal means, then they're just reacting to something they didn't like, and if the State put a limit on that reaction, then their freedom of speech would be the one at risk. The kid can say whatever he wants. CNN can react however they seem fit. If CNN's reaction is illegal, then they will have to face the justice, people would be fired (probably the journalists who leaked the kid's data), and that's it, their actions won't be without consequences.

Again, going by your definition, where would you even draw the line? At which point would someone's freedom of speech to say something they don't like about you end? Would petty blackmailing (like "I saw you cheating on your girlfriend, do what I want or I'll tell her") be outlawed? Wouldn't THAT be a threat to actual freedom of speech?

Edited July 6, 2017 by Nobody

[Hardin]

By this persons own words, he claims to be a legal adult. This notion that CNN is picking on a minor is simply absurd. 

[Rapier]

This is not about freedom of consequences. This is about your narrow acception of freedom of speech as a legal and political issue only. Of course, CNN can say anything about him in retaliation to the things that he said. However, essentially saying that you will reveal [unpleasant things that others would like to keep private] about someone should they not shut up is a threat to their freedom of speech, legal/political or outside the scope. The only difference is that the later does not warrant a legal/political reaction while the former does (which isn't this case). All the characteristics of blackmail and freedom of speech restriction ARE there.

By this persons own words, he claims to be a legal adult. This notion that CNN is picking on a minor is simply absurd. 

And how does that improve the situation?

Edited July 6, 2017 by Rapier

[Nobody]

5 minutes ago, Rapier said:

All the characteristics of freedom of speech restriction ARE there

Except the most important of them: Being made by the State. Again, if CNN reveals his information, they will have to face justice. Isn't that guarantee enough that they will be facing consequences if they try to prevent him from saying something? 

You didn't answer my question about petty blackmailing either: would you consider that a restriction to freedom of speech? If the State blocked someone from telling something about another person they don't like, isn't their freedom of speech being restricted? Where would you draw the line?

Edited July 6, 2017 by Nobody

[Rapier]

8 minutes ago, Nobody said:

Except the most important of them: Being made by the State. Again, if CNN reveal his information, they will have to face justice. Isn't that guarantee enough that they will be facing consequences if they try to prevent him from saying something?

... Ok, let's try this through another angle: What evidence makes you believe so adamantly that freedom of speech violations absolutely REQUIRE a legal or political precedent to be characterised as such? I never talked about legal requirements or juridic norms, and I don't believe anyone did.

I mean, I'll agree with you if you say that the State can violate our rights to freedom of speech, obviously. But I won't agree with you that violations to freedom of speech are limited to their legal and political scope, which is what I understand that you're saying.

Also, I don't know if they will have to face justice as I have no idea about the US' laws, but even if they do, it is still about... freedom of expression. Doesn't it prove the point?

Edited July 6, 2017 by Rapier

[Nobody]

14 minutes ago, Rapier said:

... Ok, let's try this through another angle: What evidence makes you believe so adamantly that freedom of speech violations absolutely REQUIRE a legal or political precedent to be characterised as such?

I mean, I'll agree with you if you say that the State can violate our rights to freedom of speech, obviously. But I won't agree with you that violations to freedom of speech are limited to their legal and political scope, which is what I understand that you're saying.

Also, I don't know if they will have to face justice as I have no idea about the US' laws, but even if they do, it is still about... freedom of expression. Doesn't it prove the point?

Its definition. It's quite simple. When someone reacts to something another person says, they're exercising their own right to freedom of speech. If what they do is illegal, then they're committing another crime, not restriction to freedom of speech. Understand this: Someone can say whatever he wants. They will face consequences, but those consequences won't ultimately stop them from saying what they want, since the law will be on their side. I don't agree with your definition of free speech because it's contradictory: By legally preventing a person from saying something about someone because it might hurt them, isn't the freedom of speech of the first person the one being restricted? If they react to a speech through illegal means, then they're absolutely commiting a crime, it's just that that crime isn't restriction of freedom of speech, since there's nothing concrete preventing someone from saying something, only a illegal threat that will face justice if proven to be concrete.

Again, you still haven't answered my question: If someone blackmails another person over some petty matter, like cheating on their girlfriend or something, aren't them whithin their own right to free speech to reveal what they know? Wouldn't them being legally prevented from saying it a threat to their freedom of speech? Where would you draw the line?

Edited July 6, 2017 by Nobody