CNN blackmails the creator of the video Trump tweeted out recently

[Time the Crestfallen]

4 hours ago, Rapier said:

And how does that improve the situation?

It's less about downplaying the 'crime' and more debunking the bullshit about him being 15 years old in order to make the crime seem worse than it is.

Anyway, while what CNN did is extremely shitty the hypocrisy of the far-right sections of the internet complaining about doxxing is bitter and sickening.

[Lord Raven]

i think at best CNN just had like his name and his general area, not a full-on dox.

i've also generally heard that the user suggested the terms, not CNN; CNN just stupidly put that shit in the last sentence about having the right to change their terms, so the guy is just being dumb. from my understanding either he contacted CNN or CNN contacted him and he put out the terms so as to prevent his family from being shamed or some shit

everything both sides did is 100% legal, but i find it hard to care about this shit because CNN and this dude are both complete pieces of shit, the dude possibly moreso

[Julius Nepos]

9 hours 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.

The problem with this broad definition of freedom of speech (not the legal definition) is that it has no practical worth.

Imagine that I'm at a lecture in university in a class of 500 people and the professor is just giving his lecture, and I suddenly stand up and start yelling (for example): "Donald Trump sucks!" 
The professor then shouts: "Quiet back there!"
By the broad definition of freedom of speech, this action of my professor's limits my freedom of speech.

But do I go on the internet and say: "[Name of my university] is effectively gagging my right to freedom of speech"?

What CNN did here was definitely unethical, but the issue is not their limitation of the guy's freedom of speech. The issue is that they tracked down as much personal info on him as they could and then used that to blackmail him. That is unethical. 

[Shoblongoo]

13 hours ago, Rapier said:

It is not true that the concept of freedom of speech is limited to suffering retaliation from the State.

No..as a matter of constitutional law; it actually is. It is impossible for CNN to perpetrate a "violation of free speech" because CNN is not a state actor or government agent. You have a right to engage in protected speech without being punished by your government. There is no constitutional right to protection from retaliation from private actors (i.e. Boycotts, negative press coverage, etc.).

The negative reaction of a private entity to your free speech (i.e. CNN running a negative story on you) is itself a protected form of free speech. 

UNLESS the method of retaliation separately violates another law (i.e. Extortion, Assault, Breach of Contract, etc.). But then you're in the realm of criminal conduct and tort litigation--not the constitutional right to free speech.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Rapier]

21 hours ago, Nobody said:

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?

I'm not talking about being legally prevented from speaking or not, you're the one drilling into the legal aspect of freedom of speech as if it were the only acceptable definition for it when it is only freedom of speech taken into law/politics. Our discussion is whether this is an attack on his freedom of expression. Our case in hand has CNN claiming they will share his identity should he change the situation, ie. say something they don't like. It is a coercitive action taken to shut someone up. How is this not an attempt on his freedom of speech? I don't care if there is no legal precedent for this. I'm not advocating for a legal retaliation against CNN or anything of the sort. I'm pointing that this case possesses obvious elements of blackmail intended to shut someone up, and thus attacks his freedom of expression from the evident coercitive mean to keep someone silent.

A quick google at definitions for freedom of speech shows the following results:

1) the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.  (the one I am using)

2) the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference (the one you're using)

3) same as above, + societal sanction

Your example doesn't really fit because it lacks the element of "keeping someone silent", it is merely petty blackmail (which is not a legal issue, but is still blackmail. This is pretty much the reasoning I've been using all this time). A case where a group of academic professionals try to sistematically suppress another professional's ideas and opinions, outside of rational debate, is an attack on freedom of speech. Me claiming that I will reveal your address if you don't agree with my post is an attack on your freedom of speech, regardless if this forums has any rule against it or not or if it is within my own freedom of speech to reveal it. Anything that follows the "if you say X, I'll do Y to you [so shut up]" model, where Y is something obviously undesirable and unjustifiable (a sanction or repression for doing something wrong has a rational justification and thus is not included here), is an attack on freedom of speech and blackmail (petty or not), whether it has a legal precedent or not.

 

Quote

The problem with this broad definition of freedom of speech (not the legal definition) is that it has no practical worth.

Imagine that I'm at a lecture in university in a class of 500 people and the professor is just giving his lecture, and I suddenly stand up and start yelling (for example): "Donald Trump sucks!" 
The professor then shouts: "Quiet back there!"
By the broad definition of freedom of speech, this action of my professor's limits my freedom of speech.

But do I go on the internet and say: "[Name of my university] is effectively gagging my right to freedom of speech"?

What CNN did here was definitely unethical, but the issue is not their limitation of the guy's freedom of speech. The issue is that they tracked down as much personal info on him as they could and then used that to blackmail him. That is unethical.

I agree that it is too broad, but I unfortunately can't give you a better one. Better men than I have tried to draw the line between what the institute of freedom of speech should include and what it shouldn't, and yet there is controversy. Unfortunately, I can't give an answer to that. All that I can say is that our inability to draw the line does not stop us from discerning the extremes (what is absurd and what is not).

But about your case, I think it is reasonable to say that the teacher's retaliation was justified and fair. Even if we were to count it as an attack on his freedom of speech, it was a justifiable one since he was stepping on other people's toes for that.

Now, let's twist the case a bit: Let's suppose that most students don't like the questions that this particular student asks the teacher. Most of them tell him to shut up and sistematically bring his questions down because they don't like it. Isn't this an attack on his freedom of speech? Suppose also that the same teacher tells the student to shut up whenever he tries to ask a question, wouldn't that be an attack on his freedom of speech? I do think it is!

Of course, if said student's questions are stupid and only serve to interrupt the teacher, it is justifiable to tell him to shut up. But if they are merely "annoying" some people, sistematically pursuing him is an unjustifiable attack on his freedom of speech.

 

 

Quote

No..as a matter of constitutional law; it actually is.

It only is when taken to the legal field. Is the other definition I gave wrong?

 

 

Quote

The negative reaction of a private entity to your free speech (i.e. CNN running a negative story on you) is itself a protected form of free speech. 

This is not merely about negative reactions, it is about an attempt of keeping someone quiet through an unjustifiable, unreasonable threat.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Rapier
BBCodes hate my guts.

[Lord Raven]

5 hours ago, Rapier said:

Of course, if said student's questions are stupid and only serve to interrupt the teacher, it is justifiable to tell him to shut up. But if they are merely "annoying" some people, sistematically pursuing him is an unjustifiable attack on his freedom of speech.

how are you defining justified vs unjustified. if he's annoying to some people, you are still justified in telling them to shut the fuck up; if you're witchhunting, it's not justified but there are social and societal consequences. saying simply that telling someone to shut up is repressing your freedom of speech leads to a whole mess of technicalities that basically go to "my own expression against your expression is my freedom of expression"

justification is kind of subjective here, which is why what matters most is governmental interference as opposed to a private entity. if i can't go to jail for telling you to shut the fuck up and you can't go to jail for continuing to annoy me about it, that's fine; neither of our speech is being restricted.

part of being in a free democracy is also paying attention to societal consequences to your own free speech, and taking ownership for your free speech. as far as i'm aware, this dude himself was utilizing his free speech way harder than CNN, calling for islamic genocide, calling for violence against liberals, and dropping racial epithets every other post to express how much he actually hates said minority group

this whole thing is a shitshow, and there's a reason the guy deleted his whole reddit post history. at this point, do you think CNN is justified in being able to hold his personal information (which I repeat most likely contains only his name and general area of residence -- basically anything you can get from someone's facebook without being their friend) because this person is generally very hostile towards a lot of groups? Is he not entitled to some degree of societal discipline or scrutiny? Is it someone else's expression to find ways to tell him to shut the fuck up or delete his history because of the deplorable racist shit on his profile? Talking about freedom of expression absent from any legal context is generally a rabbithole nobody wants to walk down.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Lord Raven

[salt_png]

tl;dr

CNN is a shitstain of a "news outlet" which no one should believe they're credible if they report on such things like "the president gets two scoops of icecream". The blackmail of a man who simply posted a meme making fun of them is disgusting. Thus if they do go to the extent of doxing him, a grown man who if i'm going to be realistic has a job and family, would ruin his career and ability to take care of the ones relying on him back home. 

To quote the typical leftist journo, "think of the poor children".

[Lord Raven]

25 minutes ago, GirlWithNoName said:

would ruin his career and ability to take care of the ones relying on him back home. 

which, if you've seen his post history (warning: lots of racial slurs and awful shit):

https://imgur.com/1NPi9eW

http://imgur.com/a/KKBo4#GPSR8y7

i can do more digging, but imagine saying this shit on twitter or facebook. that kind of shit would get him fired pretty quickly, and this kind of shit pops up many more times than i can count

however, what they did was they found a paper trail that linked the gif to his account to his facebook (meaning he's doing a shit job keeping irl and internet separate) and got in touch with the guy. he begged for them to not release the info, which they complied to with a cryptic threat that we don't know is a threat or just some way to cover their ass. 

and this guy has said some actual violent shit and calls to violence based on some of the other posts in his now-deleted post history. this is more or less a lesson as to how to not act like a fucking shitlord on the internet, and a lesson on how you're never truly as anonymous as you think you are. things like this happen a lot but it's not called "doxxing," it's called "journalism."

this goes back to how freedom of speech is independent of freedom from consequence, and you should probably think things through before saying some really horribly racist shit. by deleting his account, all his posts and asking for total anonymity he's basically managed to dodge responsibility from the shit he says

you surprisingly don't have any right to anonymity in a public space, which reddit actually is

i really dislike CNN too (in fact i subscribe to lewis black's idea idea of watching CNN, linked below) and the reason they're going after this wonderful bastion of a human being are petty in nature, but let's not bring up this bullshit about his kids (and frankly his posts make him seem very mentally unfit to really live in proper society, but that's not for here nor there), free speech, or doxxing when we're all responsible for what we post online.

this is actually one of the main reasons why i post my facebook in my signature; it's to express that i stand by literally everything i say online and i'm not some edgy keyboard warrior. are you guys then doxxing me by looking at my facebook account in my signature? or even googling my name and finding out i'm a graduate student at the university of arizona? yes, you are, but you are not necessarily harming me. the point is that you're not hacking me or really stalking me, you're following an obvious paper trail

tl;dr be careful of the stuff you say in social media because any degree of anonymity is not truly anonymous enough for a journalist to catch you saying some really heinous shit

Edited July 7, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Skynstein]

On 05/07/2017 at 5:19 PM, 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.

That's not true at all. Restriction is restriction wherever it comes from.

1 hour ago, Lord Raven said:

how are you defining justified vs unjustified. if he's annoying to some people, you are still justified in telling them to shut the fuck up; if you're witchhunting, it's not justified but there are social and societal consequences. saying simply that telling someone to shut up is repressing your freedom of speech leads to a whole mess of technicalities that basically go to "my own expression against your expression is my freedom of expression"

justification is kind of subjective here, which is why what matters most is governmental interference as opposed to a private entity. if i can't go to jail for telling you to shut the fuck up and you can't go to jail for continuing to annoy me about it, that's fine; neither of our speech is being restricted.

part of being in a free democracy is also paying attention to societal consequences to your own free speech, and taking ownership for your free speech. as far as i'm aware, this dude himself was utilizing his free speech way harder than CNN, calling for islamic genocide, calling for violence against liberals, and dropping racial epithets every other post to express how much he actually hates said minority group

this whole thing is a shitshow, and there's a reason the guy deleted his whole reddit post history. at this point, do you think CNN is justified in being able to hold his personal information (which I repeat most likely contains only his name and general area of residence -- basically anything you can get from someone's facebook without being their friend) because this person is generally very hostile towards a lot of groups (including, once again, genocide) and CNN kept him in mind. Is he not entitled to some degree of societal discipline or scrutiny? Is it someone else's expression to find ways to tell him to shut the fuck up or delete his history because of the deplorable racist shit on his profile? Talking about freedom of expression absent from any legal context is generally a rabbithole nobody wants to walk down.

CNN is not the FBI nor the county sheriff, mate. They can't "punish" anyone.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Skynstein

[Lord Raven]

12 minutes ago, Skynstein said:

That's not true at all. Restriction is restriction wherever it comes from.

CNN is not the FBI nor the county sheriff, mate. They can't "punish" anyone.

your points are incongruent

are you saying that any restriction is restriction, whether or not it is by the state? then, if posting someone's name and hometown are so damning, then isn't that a punishment? "restricting free speech" is a form of punishment.

 

CNN are punishing them from a societal point of view, in the same way that any media would punish someone who commits verbal transgressions; by stating their name, a little bit about them, tidbits from interviews and their level of public speech. he is not being restricted by the state but from other people, in the same way your job passively restricts you from going onto twitter and saying "kill the n words" 50 times in a row. then society takes your fate into their hands, in this case your job firing you

and no, this guy is not special, because stuff like this happens in a less anonymous atmosphere and they do not get away scot-free

i think CNN wouldn't even touch this guy if he didn't have a history of saying really shitty things

(once again i really don't care about either side, and both sides are really stupid, but i think it's only fair to acknowledge that the guy they targeted was a huge piece of shit)

to me it's literally like telling someone to shut the fuck up after he hurls a ton of slurs at you, and it's a similar kind of restriction, but i don't think CNN is doing that. I think they're saying "we will post his name if he does some crazy shit later," because once again this dude's posts are actually fucking insane and in some cases violent.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Shoblongoo]

What's this guy even taking about? Free speech is  a creature of law and without the law, it does not exist. There is no "legal aspect of free speech" and "other aspects of free speech." Free Speech is The Law of Free Speech. That is all.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Julius Nepos]

On 7-7-2017 at 1:19 AM, Rapier said:

I agree that it is too broad, but I unfortunately can't give you a better one. Better men than I have tried to draw the line between what the institute of freedom of speech should include and what it shouldn't, and yet there is controversy. Unfortunately, I can't give an answer to that. All that I can say is that our inability to draw the line does not stop us from discerning the extremes (what is absurd and what is not).

But about your case, I think it is reasonable to say that the teacher's retaliation was justified and fair. Even if we were to count it as an attack on his freedom of speech, it was a justifiable one since he was stepping on other people's toes for that.

Now, let's twist the case a bit: Let's suppose that most students don't like the questions that this particular student asks the teacher. Most of them tell him to shut up and sistematically bring his questions down because they don't like it. Isn't this an attack on his freedom of speech? Suppose also that the same teacher tells the student to shut up whenever he tries to ask a question, wouldn't that be an attack on his freedom of speech? I do think it is!

This definition of freedom of speech is still practically meaningless.

The teacher's retaliation in my example was justified because the student in my example was disrupting the lecture, which is detrimental to the learning environment.

The teacher's and the students' retaliation in your example is not justified because what they are doing is detrimental to the learning environment (repressing questions from a student in class) and constitutes bullying.

In neither of the two examples is limitation of freedom of speech the problem. 

[Lushen]

Ah, the Washington post of TV...

Here's a scary fact :
        Fox News and CNN are the top 2 most watched news networks

Not exactly surprising, but just think about that.  MSNBC has third place, but they're pretty bad too.  This is why I've been wanting a major shutdown of all major news networks.  Everyone just watches whatever news station agrees with their views, and condemns the other pretending that their news network is the legitimate one. 

It's all crap.

 

Was it ever established that they actually blackmailed him?  All I saw was someone saying that they chose not to reveal his name because he apologized, not that they made him apologize or they would reveal his name.

I am curious, was anyone actually offended by the video?  I know a number of people who laughed, a number of people who shrugged, and a number of people who used it as an excuse to attack Trump again.  I don't know anyone (other than CNN) that actually believes he was telling people to physically attack reporters, but that's what CNN says.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Lushen

[Lord Raven]

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

Ah, the Washington post of TV...

Washington Post is significantly better than the majority of written news or any TV news.

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

Here's a scary fact :
        Fox News and CNN are the top 2 most watched news networks

Not exactly surprising, but just think about that.  MSNBC has third place, but they're pretty bad too.  This is why I've been wanting a major shutdown of all major news networks.  Everyone just watches whatever news station agrees with their views, and condemns the other pretending that their news network is the legitimate one. 

It's all crap.

Ah yes, so we should get our news from reputable places such as politicians.

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

I am curious, was anyone actually offended by the video?  I know a number of people who laughed, a number of people who shrugged, and a number of people who used it as an excuse to attack Trump again.  I don't know anyone (other than CNN) that actually believes he was telling people to physically attack reporters, but that's what CNN says.

The context is that Donald Trump is extremely hostile towards all kinds of media, whether or not it praises him. CNN blows but let's not pretend that Donald Trump has been kind towards the media.

[Lushen]

57 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Washington Post is significantly better than the majority of written news or any TV news.

I dunno about the majority.  The main issue with TV News isn't actually the news, but the commentators that speculate like crazy and bring in the dumbest person from the other side and try to have a 'fair' debate.  In my experience, the Washington Post has more experience handpicking facts than TV News, but it doesn't have as much speculation.

57 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Ah yes, so we should get our news from reputable places such as politicians.

Can you honestly tell me that our current news system is flawless?  Or even acceptable by any reasonable standards?  We should get our news from government officials (at least, the gov't related news).  For example, let the FBI do the investigating.

57 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

The context is that Donald Trump is extremely hostile towards all kinds of media, whether or not it praises him. CNN blows but let's not pretend that Donald Trump has been kind towards the media.

2 hours ago, Lushen said:

I am curious, was anyone actually offended by the video?  I know a number of people who laughed, a number of people who shrugged, and a number of people who used it as an excuse to attack Trump again.  I don't know anyone (other than CNN) that actually believes he was telling people to physically attack reporters, but that's what CNN says.

My question wasn't whether it was acceptable for POTUS to tweet the video, but whether anyone believes Trump was encouraging physical violence against media officials, as CNN states is what they believe.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Lushen

[Lord Raven]

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

I dunno about the majority.  The main issue with TV News isn't actually the news, but the commentators that speculate like crazy and bring in the dumbest person from the other side and try to have a 'fair' debate.  In my experience, the Washington Post has more experience handpicking facts than TV News, but it doesn't have as much speculation.

And your experience is based on... what?

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

Can you honestly tell me that our current news system is flawless?  Or even acceptable by any reasonable standards?  We should get our news from government officials (at least, the gov't related news).  For example, let the FBI do the investigating.

No, it's flawed. Doesn't mean we should eliminate it. Why should we not report on FBI investigation? Why shouldn't independent journalists and news organizations do their own investigations? After all, the Washington Post were the guys that broke watergate.

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

My question wasn't whether it was acceptable for POTUS to tweet the video, but whether anyone believes Trump was encouraging physical violence against media officials, as CNN states is what they believe.

Who cares what CNN thinks? Trump is hostile towards the idea of free press, and putting two and two together with the gif/video is a shameful display by the POTUS.

[Lushen]

11 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

And your experience is based on... what?

Look at these headlines

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/?nid=top_nav_politics&utm_term=.8bcbb66e30af

"That's that: The Trump Campaign welcomed Russian meddeling" You're telling me that's open to both sides of the view?  It's the wording.  They could have used "Knew About" instead of "welcomed", but they didn't.  Welcomed is very open to interpretation, knew about is a fact.  They could have went with the fact, but they chose to go with speculation.

11 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

No, it's flawed. Doesn't mean we should eliminate it. Why should we not report on FBI investigation? Why shouldn't independent journalists and news organizations do their own investigations? After all, the Washington Post were the guys that broke watergate.

Arg, you have a habit of taking what I say out of context and disagreeing with what I didn't say...

I want all the major media networks to shut down.  I'm not saying I want them to be censored, or illegal. I'm not saying we shouldn't have media networks.  I'm saying CNN, Fox News, and MSCNB should be a thing of the past and we should get other media outlets.  It's a hypothetical. I don't expect it to happen, but it's a nice fantasy.

Reporting on the FBI investigation is fine.  Speculating on the FBI investigation is not.  They know what they're doing, the journalists don't.  

Why shouldn't they do their own investigations?  Because guess what, they are not qualified to do so.  PI's often have years of experience in the police force.  Reporters have years of experience in....speculating...  The same reason you and I shouldn't conduct investigations, let people who actually have all the information and have experience do it.  If a journalist want's to do investigations, they're welcome to go into the police force or become a PI.  The issue is when a journalist conducts investigations, they release little bits of information on their blogs/news outlets one at a time and speculate like crazy.  Professional investigators don't do that.  They get all the facts and make a decision.  It's a controlled environment.  

11 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Who cares what CNN thinks? Trump is hostile towards the idea of free press, and putting two and two together with the gif/video is a shameful display by the POTUS.

For one, this thread does.  It's about CNN, not Trump - which is why I asked about CNN's statement, not Trump.  Again, you're talking to me about something I didn't bring up as if I did.  I asked if anyone was offended and if anyone believes CNN's statement.  You're deflecting my questions into a separate issue.  

Edited July 11, 2017 by Lushen

[Lord Raven]

Factual reporting is not necessarily neutral, and in this case Trump is a garbage piece of shit and any neutral source will point this out. The Russia meddling has a lot of weight to it as well as the degree of Trump campaign collusion as of the past few days.

Journalist investigation is part of a grander investigation. They watch the watchmen and their evidence is from sources they interview who are closely connected to the investigation then their job is to hold the FBI/police/etc's feet to the fire to make sure they're not jobbing the American public. I'm baffled that you are saying that we should rely on professionals for stuff considering your crusade against scientists and professional pollsters and poll aggregates. Journalists are also trained to piece things together given that it's next to impossible to find direct proof.

How do you shut down major news networks short of government intervention against the first amendment pray tell? Short of authoritarianism it is not going to happen. There's no reason to shut down media, and the free press is one of our major rights granted to us in the name of freedom. I support their right to exist despite hating them, because it's necessary for them to exist.

Finally, you're asking about how people could think it's a call to violence, and I answered it. That's relevant.

[Lushen]

6 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Factual reporting is not necessarily neutral, and in this case Trump is a garbage piece of shit and any neutral source will point this out. The Russia meddling has a lot of weight to it as well as the degree of Trump campaign collusion as of the past few days.

In any case, it's quite irrelevant to the topic at hand regarding CNN's 'blackmail' (which I still don't think was actually blackmail)

6 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Journalist investigation is part of a grander investigation. They watch the watchmen and their evidence is from sources they interview who are closely connected to the investigation then their job is to hold the FBI/police/etc's feet to the fire to make sure they're not jobbing the American public. I'm baffled that you are saying that we should rely on professionals for stuff considering your crusade against scientists and professional pollsters and poll aggregates. Journalists are also trained to piece things together given that it's next to impossible to find direct proof.

I have no quarrel with scientists.  I know there is a difference between real world scenario and scientific scenario but I'm not sure where you're getting that I am against scientists from.  As for pollsters, yea - not too much confidence in them.  Not sure how it's a crusade and not just an opinion, but whatever - not overly relevant.

You've just stated that it's next to impossible for them to find direct proof, if I am reading this correctly.  Nevertheless, the FBI isn't only trained to do this (which they are), but they also have a lot more clearance, personal, and rights as far as investigations go.  Journalists are welcome to investigate to some regard, but if the FBI is investigating Russian collusion they need to learn how to back off.  It can be assumed the FBI has a lot more information than the journalists do, it's their job.

This article goes into what I was talking about, with this topic in mind.  A journalist without reasonable authority tracked down someone who made the CNN GiF and got him to delete all his reddit posts and apologize.  Now I don't know about you, but I find that terrifying.  I've never heard of the FBI doing any of this, because they're a very controlled investigation group.  In my mind, this constitutes both stalking, and intimidation.  I bet you there are 100 memes posted about Trump a day and because CNN didn't like this one they decided to stalk and intimidate this man who made a short little gif that probably took him 5 minutes that he meant as a joke.  

Even Trump, hasn't stooped so low.

6 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

How do you shut down major news networks short of government intervention against the first amendment pray tell? Short of authoritarianism it is not going to happen. There's no reason to shut down media, and the free press is one of our major rights granted to us in the name of freedom. I support their right to exist despite hating them, because it's necessary for them to exist.

As I've explicitly stated twice, it's a fantasy scenario.  I am not calling for the gov't to shut down the news networks, I am fantasizing a world where they all go bankrupt or something and shut down naturally.  I am not suggesting what you say I'm suggesting (which is exactly what I said you were doing in my last post)

6 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Finally, you're asking about how people could think it's a call to violence, and I answered it. That's relevant.

Where?  "Who cares what CNN thinks? Trump is hostile towards the idea of free press, and putting two and two together with the gif/video is a shameful display by the POTUS." does not suggest you believe Trump is calling for violence.  It just suggests he doesn't like the idea (hostile) of the press.  CNN said they believe Trump was encouraging violence (physical) not that he is hostile towards the idea (mental, not physical) of press.  My question was if anyone believes CNN's accusation because it is actually relevant to this thread.  The distinction for physical violence vs hostile feelins is drastic and I think CNN is going way too far.

Either way, Trump has nothing wrong with the free press, he tweets some of them all the time.  He has a problem with CNN, something both of us seem to have in common with him.  

[Lord Raven]

5 hours ago, Lushen said:

I have no quarrel with scientists.  I know there is a difference between real world scenario and scientific scenario but I'm not sure where you're getting that I am against scientists from.  As for pollsters, yea - not too much confidence in them.  Not sure how it's a crusade and not just an opinion, but whatever - not overly relevant.

I didn't say anything about scientists. I've argued pollsters. You ignored it in the other thread. Don't be a hypocrite.

5 hours ago, Lushen said:

You've just stated that it's next to impossible for them to find direct proof, if I am reading this correctly.  Nevertheless, the FBI isn't only trained to do this (which they are), but they also have a lot more clearance, personal, and rights as far as investigations go.  Journalists are welcome to investigate to some regard, but if the FBI is investigating Russian collusion they need to learn how to back off.  It can be assumed the FBI has a lot more information than the journalists do, it's their job.

It's still very difficult at best. Investigative journalism takes a lot of cause and effect, piecing together bits of information and giving it to the American public, relying on sources close to those who are being investigated. Do I have to repeat it again? They do investigation from a different angle and in some cases poke holes in the FBI/etc's stuff that they put out. And again, I would like to quote that investigative journalism has led to stories breaking. I highly advise you to read up on Watergate and the Washington Post's role in Watergate.

5 hours ago, Lushen said:

A journalist without reasonable authority tracked down someone who made the CNN GiF and got him to delete all his reddit posts and apologize.  Now I don't know about you, but I find that terrifying.

Have you seen what this guy posted? Do CNN have any governmental power? I would find it terrifying if I said heinous shit and it came back to bite me -- but I haven't, and the government hasn't come after me for it on account of the fact that it's not illegal. What CNN has done is not illegal and does not suppress his free speech.

He deleted his reddit posts on his own volition, and he contacted CNN making the terms for them on his own volition. CNN agreed to his terms, even though they have no obligation to.

5 hours ago, Lushen said:

I've never heard of the FBI doing any of this, because they're a very controlled investigation group.  In my mind, this constitutes both stalking, and intimidation.  I bet you there are 100 memes posted about Trump a day and because CNN didn't like this one they decided to stalk and intimidate this man who made a short little gif that probably took him 5 minutes that he meant as a joke.  

They didn't stalk nor intimidate to the extent that people are reporting.

5 hours ago, Lushen said:

As I've explicitly stated twice, it's a fantasy scenario.  I am not calling for the gov't to shut down the news networks, I am fantasizing a world where they all go bankrupt or something and shut down naturally.  I am not suggesting what you say I'm suggesting (which is exactly what I said you were doing in my last post)

Why is shutting down the media beneficial at all in a free democracy? Because you hate the media?

5 hours ago, Lushen said:

Even Trump, hasn't stooped so low.

He has gone lower.

5 hours ago, Lushen said:

Where?  "Who cares what CNN thinks? Trump is hostile towards the idea of free press, and putting two and two together with the gif/video is a shameful display by the POTUS." does not suggest you believe Trump is calling for violence.  It just suggests he doesn't like the idea (hostile) of the press.  CNN said they believe Trump was encouraging violence (physical) not that he is hostile towards the idea (mental, not physical) of press.  My question was if anyone believes CNN's accusation because it is actually relevant to this thread.  The distinction for physical violence vs hostile feelins is drastic and I think CNN is going way too far.

I'm saying it looks far worse for the president to retweet him, and his angry ass followers. This is the guy who encouraged his own guys to beat the crap out of protesters, claims protesters are paid off by Soros or some shit, and then continues to ignore CNN in favor of Breitbart who ask him a question akin to fellatio. Whether or not he directly told his followers to be hostile to the free press is irrelevant to the fact that the sum of all of his actions shows a sense of hostility towards the free press, which may or may not include violence (though I doubt he's trying to provoke violence).

5 hours ago, Lushen said:

Either way, Trump has nothing wrong with the free press, he tweets some of them all the time.  He has a problem with CNN, something both of us seem to have in common with him.  

"Failing New York Times" ring a bell to you? Outright refusing to answer a question to CNN and then responding to Breitbart, his propaganda wing, instead? He recently tweeted out some crap about some television personalities and how awful they were once they talked down on him. He didn't let press outside of basically Fox News into White House meetings. And don't forget this gem. And "we're gonna open up those libel laws!"

 

[Lushen]

 

8 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

I didn't say anything about scientists.

20 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

I'm baffled that you are saying that we should rely on professionals for stuff considering your crusade against scientists and professional pollsters and poll aggregates. Journalists are also trained to piece things together given that it's next to impossible to find direct proof.

Ok.

8 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

It's still very difficult at best. Investigative journalism takes a lot of cause and effect, piecing together bits of information and giving it to the American public, relying on sources close to those who are being investigated. Do I have to repeat it again? They do investigation from a different angle and in some cases poke holes in the FBI/etc's stuff that they put out. And again, I would like to quote that investigative journalism has led to stories breaking. I highly advise you to read up on Watergate and the Washington Post's role in Watergate.

It's hardly fair to compare the Washington Post now to the Washington Post during the Watergate Scandal.  That was quite a long time ago.  That being said,

"Relying heavily on anonymous sources"
This is something people are criticizing the media for, and it sounds like they did that during Watergate.

"The media failed to grasp the full implications of the scandal" is exactly what I was saying earlier.  The media is not a professional investigation force.  They find little tidits of information and instead of reporting them to the FBI, they publish them created widespread speculation.  From what I understand, the watergate scandal was a complete mess.  Rather than quietly resolving it lawfully it was plastered all over the news and completely jeopardized our nation's reputation.

Finally, crediting the media for catching people is like crediting Facebook because someone posted a picture with a murderer in the background.  The 'annonymous sources' had a responsibility to report what was going on to the FBI NOT the media.  Their failure to follow the law and report illegal activity should not go to the credit of the media.

8 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Have you seen what this guy posted? Do CNN have any governmental power? I would find it terrifying if I said heinous shit and it came back to bite me -- but I haven't, and the government hasn't come after me for it on account of the fact that it's not illegal. What CNN has done is not illegal and does not suppress his free speech.

He deleted his reddit posts on his own volition, and he contacted CNN making the terms for them on his own volition. CNN agreed to his terms, even though they have no obligation to.

They didn't stalk nor intimidate to the extent that people are reporting.

No, they don't, that's what I find so terrifying.  CNN is just like you or I, and I can tell you I'm not going to try and track down your IP address, find your name, and contact you.  You would find THAT creepy as hell, right?  That's pretty much what CNN did.

Acc't to the articles people including myself have linked, CNN contacted the man before he took down the reddit posts (to my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong).

Tracking down an IP address and getting the name of someone who is posting under a username is stalking.  There is absolutely no reason for tracing someone who prefers to post anonymously.  

8 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Why is shutting down the media beneficial at all in a free democracy? Because you hate the media?

One more time, I said it was a fantasy.  And I said I don't want the media to be shut down, I wan't the bias media to be shut down and replaced with better media outlets.  It's a blind fantasy.  

8 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

I'm saying it looks far worse for the president to retweet him, and his angry ass followers. This is the guy who encouraged his own guys to beat the crap out of protesters, claims protesters are paid off by Soros or some shit, and then continues to ignore CNN in favor of Breitbart who ask him a question akin to fellatio. Whether or not he directly told his followers to be hostile to the free press is irrelevant to the fact that the sum of all of his actions shows a sense of hostility towards the free press, which may or may not include violence (though I doubt he's trying to provoke violence).

When/where did he encourage "his own guys to beat the crap out of protesters"?  Are you saying this video encouraged "his own guys to beat the crap out of protesters"?  Because for one thing, he was beating the crap out of CNN, not protesters.  

8 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

"Failing New York Times" ring a bell to you? Outright refusing to answer a question to CNN and then responding to Breitbart, his propaganda wing, instead? He recently tweeted out some crap about some television personalities and how awful they were once they talked down on him. He didn't let press outside of basically Fox News into White House meetings. And don't forget this gem. And "we're gonna open up those libel laws!"

I totally agree with you on this.  I never said Trump didn't play favorites when it comes to the media, my point was that he is not against ALL media.  And actually, I haven't seen much against MSNBC, it's mostly against CNN specifically.  He has not called out any non-bias media outlets yet, to my knowledge.  Maybe that's cause there is are no non-bias media outlets.

It's not letting me view the contents of "this gem".  I get a pop up that won't go away.

Edited July 12, 2017 by Lushen

[Lord Raven]

4 minutes ago, Lushen said:

It's hardly fair to compare the Washington Post now to the Washington Post during the Watergate Scandal.  That was quite a long time ago.

You're legitimately dense.

Quote

The connection between the break-in and the re-election committee was highlighted by media coverage—in particular, investigative coverage by The Washington Post, Time, and The New York Times. The coverage dramatically increased publicity and consequent political repercussions. Relying heavily upon anonymous sources, Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein uncovered information suggesting that knowledge of the break-in, and attempts to cover it up, led deeply into the upper reaches of the Justice Department, FBI, CIA, and the White House. Woodward and Bernstein interviewed Judy Hoback Miller, the bookkeeper for Nixon, who revealed to them information about the mishandling of funds and records being destroyed.

This is why you need anonymous sources. Anonymous sources won't be at risk of losing their job and builds trust with the reporters, especially in places like the FBI. In places like Fox News, they are definitely not reliable; but Washington Post and NYT have generally been good about relying on anonymous sources and getting accurate information out of them.

If the FBI or CIA are fucking up and reaching the levels of Watergate corruption, then you absolutely need this kind of thing. Otherwise we're all dead in the water.

7 minutes ago, Lushen said:

No, they don't, that's what I find so terrifying.  CNN is just like you or I, and I can tell you I'm not going to try and track down your IP address, find your name, and contact you.  You would find THAT creepy as hell, right?  That's pretty much what CNN did.

My real name and facebook are in my signature, so I wouldn't find it creepy. They didn't track his IP address.

8 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Acc't to the articles people including myself have linked, CNN contacted the man before he took down the reddit posts (to my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong).

Tracking down an IP address and getting the name of someone who is posting under a username is stalking.  There is absolutely no reason for tracing someone who prefers to post anonymously.  

But they didn't force him to take down his reddit posts. He pretty much "negotiated" the terms on his own. At any rate, following a paper trail != stalking, this is how investigative journalism works.

9 minutes ago, Lushen said:

When/where did he encourage "his own guys to beat the crap out of protesters"?  Are you saying this video encouraged "his own guys to beat the crap out of protesters"?  Because for one thing, he was beating the crap out of CNN, not protesters.  

Protesters are a form of dissent, and Trump hates dissent. The media is a form of dissent, and he posted a gif of him beating the crap out of them. As I said, no direct calls to violence, but he is needlessly hostile towards any media.

10 minutes ago, Lushen said:

He has not called out any non-bias media outlets yet, to my knowledge.

He has not called out much biased media either. Fox News and Breitbart make CNN look like NYT, and yet he always allows them in. However, he's he is all for suppression of the media that hits him the hardest with the sole exception of MSNBC. He calls them Fake News, much like our favorite fascist. Trump is no Hitler, don't get me wrong; he's a failed version of Mussolini at best, but again you have to not be paying attention if you think that he wants nothing but the media to slobber over him.

[Shoblongoo]

We're way past Watergate levels of corruption, tbh. Nixon at least had the sense not to outsource the work of burglarizing the DNC to the Soviets.

Edited July 12, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Tolvir]

Alright. We got a little off topic here, but I have something I want to say.

this isn't a political left or right, conservative or progressive, sports team vs sports team BS here. This is a GD corporation who just essentially blackmailed someone. They told him to essentially shut up and apologize, over a meme by the way, or they will release his information. That's blackmail. Plain and simple. 

and the idea that this is acceptable because of dumb shit he has posted on Reddit? Bullshit. I don't care if this guy is a supporter for a 4th Reich and a lover of Hitler, reading from Mein Kampf every night before going to bed. CNN is not the police. They are not the US government. They are not vigilantes, though they seem to want to be. They are a CORPORATION.  What kind of example does this set for the future? That corporations can just blackmail someone over a meme? I don't care if it's literally Hitler himself coming out of hiding in whatever South American country and posting some stupid ass meme, it's not the job of the corporation to go digging through someone's post history, find their real information, and threaten to post it unless they get an apology. The fuck is this? Cyberpunk? 

The fact that this is at all a "political" issue just astonishes me. Everyone should be pissed off at this. Even if it's technically not illegal (questionable), this isn't ok. At all.