Gamergate and DOXING

THIS is where we discuss that @runicknight , not R&P.
IF YOU ARE ADDRESSING SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT PERTAIN TO GAMERGATE, PLEASE POST IT IN THE CNN THREAD IN R&P HERE:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.977121-CNN-finds-Reddit-user-who-created-the-Trump-CNN-wrestling-gif-Threatens-to-release-his-info

You asked how I felt about gamergate Doxing people or gamergate being DOXED. I will discuss that here and not in the wrong forum.

First, I do not disagree with people having their real name on the internet, nor do I think we are anonymous on the internet nor are we entitled to be. It is just a False sense of security, if someone really wants to find you they will be able to do so. The internet is the MOST PUBLIC space we use, and it should be considered as such. But DOXING someone is not just about their identity, Many people have their identity online and it isn't much of a problem. It is MORE about targeting someone for attack and that is actually a separate issue. It is the " Hey everyone this person sucks HATE THEM! Look this will be funny to make their life suck if we dog pile them" BS. For a moment, imagine everyone had their real name online and used it everywhere they posted. No big deal right? It isn't for most people who use the internet. That is how people find their physicians and hair stylist. It is nothing new. The problem ISN'T their ID, it is targeting them for attack. Those are separate issues.

I do not view the internet as a space where you expect to be aable to hide and do bad things either. As I stated in the other thread:

I ALSO do not however, think that one is entitled to go around making threats to people online and expect it to be considered private. It does not work that way, any more than it would if you did such in a restaurant. Just think of the internet as a restaurant and you should behave just the same as you would there, even supporting sites with a donation/ tip as you would tip your waitress for providing you with a service.

For example, we are visiting the Escapist, they provide us with a service that allows us all to sit here and yell at each other about games and everything else. Just like in any other establishment, if some gold farmer barges in peddling their wares yelling spam at the people in here, or someone starts insulting and threatening people, they will chunk them out and ban them from coming back, not unlike what a bouncer does. Just like in some cases, the Establishment takes an extra step to call the police, if they suspect the person may be dangerous or if the threats were severe. They do the same online.

They ALREADY arrest people for threatening others online, as they should.
http://www.businessinsider.com/people-arrested-for-facebook-posts-2013-7?op=1

If you do not want people finding out what you did or to be held accountable for your doing bad things, DON'T DO BAD THINGS. It isn't hard. This applies universally everywhere. It matters not if you are threatening your wife in your home or some stranger on the internet. BOTH are BAD.

In addition, if you are shitposting threats, they are not and should not be protected:

I do not support shitposting period, and honestly, like I stated earlier in the thread in my discussion with satinavian
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.977121-CNN-finds-Reddit-user-who-created-the-Trump-CNN-wrestling-gif-Threatens-to-release-his-info?page=2#24032381

I personally think we would all be better off with Germany's laws on this. First, his shitpost is illegal in Germany and the law would have forced it to be removed and he would have incurred legal penalties for doing that in the first place.
Second, They do not publish the names of suspects/criminals in their news at all, so they would not have needed to have an anonymity statement at all.

His statements were disturbing REGARDLESS of who they were targeted at. If he has been ranting to wipe every white person or Christian off the face of the planet, they would be JUST AS disturbing. I do not see his " shitposting" as protected speech, not unlike how "fighting words" are not protected speech. They arrest people for making those type of statements online already as it is. He is lucky if that does not happen to him. He still could be held legally accountable, however, him making the apology he did just may help him stay out of legal trouble.

So as far as I am concerned, more Nations should adopt Germany's laws. He would have been held legally accountable, the website fined if they left the threats up there, and no news agencies would publish names of suspects or criminals. That way NO ONE IS THREATENED. This applies no different to gamergate or anyone else. You seem to not understand my position on that either. I do not care who it is that is doing the threats. Again, from the other thread:

First, by what you have posted, you assume I am against men's rights? against white people? I am not, nor have I ever even remotely suggested I was. Issues with individual organizations are outside the actual issue of men's rights or white people themselves. Precise words and actions have to be considered, not just " topic". For example, someone insulting and encouraging male suicide should most definitely be called on it, and in the extreme case of their actions such as the case with Michelle Carter, she should be held legally accountable for his death. Not only did she not " stop and render aid" to someone who was vulnerable, by contacting the police or encourage him to get help to prevent the suicide from happening, she deliberately and knowingly encouraged him to do it. I do hold a person accountable for malicious actions and do see it as just to charge her accordingly. I am not even seeing these issues that anyone would possibly consider " left or right" they do not belong to " sides" I think the entire premise of " us vs them" or " sides" when it is actually just about doing what is right. I see the entire concept of " sides" as not only being being toxic and harmful to society, but terribly dangerous as it goads people into supporting a party like it is a sports team regardless of whether their actual polices will harm them. It gives undeserved popularity to candidates and allows for corruption to run rampant. You should never be for or against something due to "what side it is on", but instead for whether or not it is beneficial to society and making the world a better place for everyone that is forced to live in it. Sides have nothing to do with my position, my position is fact vs fiction.

This is not about sides or whether or not you like something. That is irrelevant and honestly, the whole idea of "sides" is what is destroying our world. It is a terrible mindset to think that one supports something due to what side it is on.

Now, specifically to gamergate. The targeting and harassment was horrific. No one should have targeted Zoe in the first place, no one should have targeted Gamer gaters. This started with the harassment of Zoe Quinn because her Boyfriend posted their shitshow of a relationship nonsense online that I have no idea why anyone even cared about because from the looks of they were both horrible people who deserved each other. If that had not happened, none of the OTHER targeting would have happened. People targeted her, she targeted people, they targeted more people and it just kept going in it's utterly ridiculous display of the trots until it made sure it made gamers look like the biggest most obsessive sniveling whiny little vindictive shits in existence. I have NEVER been embarrassed to be a gamer before I saw THAT repugnant display. It was embarrassing to see gamers so dead set on making all gamers look bad.

It wasn't even about revealing identities, as most of the people they were attacking were not anonymous. But that is also the thing. If you are going to attack someone who is not anonymous, then you should not expect to remain anonymous while doing so. No one is entitled to target and attack people is the issue. But like I stated earlier, if more adopted Germany's laws, they would not be able to do so and websites would be additionally held accountable if they allowed it to happen. It does not matter whose side is doing the threatening. The whole thing is toxic and no benefit to society, thus why they deemed "fighting words" as not being protected speech, this should be the same for the same reasons.

https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2010/03/state-courts-find-teen-agers-fighting-words-unprotected/

Your points are sound. But probably preaching to the choir here, so this is not that helpful a post I guess. Those mentioned behaviours are illogical and inexcusable in the collective (at the least). There is definitely an issue of disconnect with responsibility particular such types of case.
Although the illusion of anonymity can help with the records somewhat (like with surveys). It's always informative seeing an unfiltered expression of the mind. And if that mind attacks others, they should not feel safe and protected doing so. Just because there are a lot of assholes, it doesn't excuse apathy. Asshole begets asshole. You couldn't get away with postal letters dancing the same dance.

So, you seem to openly admit you are hypocritical in both your stance and your support of CNN ,and your condemnation of others for doing the exact same thing CNN blackmailed a man with threats of doing. Very well, that was all I wanted to know in the previous thread. I do wish you had bothered to actually quote me in either thread to get my attention properly though, would have been able to reply more quickly I think.

But I want to pull attention to something specific here.

It is MORE about targeting someone for attack and that is actually a separate issue. It is the " Hey everyone this person sucks HATE THEM! Look this will be funny to make their life suck if we dog pile them"

How does this differ from a major news agency threatening to reveal your dirty laundry and thus guarantee people mob you and others cause you mental, social and even physical harm? How is it ok that a news agency threatened to reveal information world-wide to encourage a dogpile if someone didn't obey their demands, but it would be contemptible if an individual with a far, far more limited range threatened to do the same? We have established that the act of targeting someone for attack is contemptible, why is it ok for CNN to threaten that, but bad for an individual troll with far less range and thus far less potential for various harms? I argue both are unjustified and should be condemned, but you excuse CNN via special pleading and pretending anonymity doesn't mean shit if they want to push a story based entirely on petty revenge for political shitposting. Your argument is that a news agency is allowed to threaten behavior that individuals are not, an argument I refuse to treat with any seriousness.

As for the specifics. You link to sites that actively publish their identity when trying to compare ones that are anonymous from the start. You link to legitimate cases of threats instead of cherry-picked shitposting from a site where such is the norm. In short, you are comparing to different things and situations and intentionally ignoring that those differences have been explained to you mutliple times.

I addressed this multiple times. I'll repeat my analogy from the other thread. This is a butthurt reporter dragging a man off stage at a raunchy comedy club and threatening to run his reputation into the ground for the jokes he made. A journalist who sought that man out because someone important repeated a joke. the interest there is solely the reporter's, not the publics, and the action solely an act of revenge, not relevant the public interest.

Your argument is also of the mind that journalists have right and duty to act as a police of the internet for what they personally find offensive or have a grudge against. That no one should have anonymity and all posts should be tied to a name and a face. You would condemn yourself far more than you know in your eagerness to lynch others. The authoritarian power-grab would be abused as soon as it was implemented and it wouldn't be in support of YOUR personal political views in the end. There is a reason that those who champion free speech as a concept are often seen marrying it to anonymity and open opposition to things such as German's attempt to police the internet. All justified because his words were found offensive and you pretended it was a threat.

You are no better than the man from the analogy, interfering with the comedy club and punishing everyone involved because your personal opinions were affronted.

Finally, you refer to what is known as "fighting words" which do not apply the way you try to use them. The article discusses events offline and the ruling applies differently that your attempted use of it.

'A 1942 Supreme Court decision called Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire ?" which involved a Jehovah's Witness who cursed at a city marshal, calling him a "damned fascist" " articulated a "fighting words" doctrine that restricted insults intended to provoke an "immediate breach of the peace."'

Here is the key though, and your article, which describes offline events, clearly points it out as well

The Court defined "fighting words" as "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Most courts have focused on the second part of the definition.

It refers specifically to offline situations where the words cause an immediate reaction that would breach the peace, either by instigating a fight or causing fear for safety. This is similar to the court ruling that screaming "fire" in a crowded theater is not protected speech either. It is not applicable to an anonymous post on a shitposting board in a site that allows such posts where no one can physically fight or breach the peace immediately in response. It does not apply the way you describe it applying.

In the other thread I asked a simple question and while you took the time to carefully over-explain it and I appreciate the effort there, though it is pointless effort for what was a very simple answer ultimately. You are making special distinctions between what CNN threatened to do and what some trolls did do, while intentionally ignoring that the blackmail under threat of that is not excusable, and your attempts to pretend that the news agency doing it somehow makes it different than when an anonymous poster does it are disingenuous. Meanwhile you refuse repeatedly to address the distinction brought up time and again between a news agency acting on public interest or revealing publicly provided information tied to the behavior, and an anonymous shitposter on a message board where such behavior was allowed.

So I have another question to ask here for clarification.

Do you think that it is justifiable to punish someone socially, emotionally and even physically for posting something you or someone else is offended by?


No, that is not blackmail. The courts will rule it to not be blackmail. No matter how many times you click your ruby slippers and repeat it, it does not suddenly turn it into blackmail. CNN simply did what they are required to do to protect this man and no, they should not be punished for protecting him, no matter how much of an asshole either of them may be.

I added some ONLINE situations in the other post BTW. Simply because online laws are lagging behind, expect all the laws that apply in the rest of society to get there in time. They have already arrested numerous people for racist threats online, and I provided you a few links of example already. If you had read them, you would see those others were posted online not offline.

No one is entitled to threaten others. The end.

Lil devils x:


No, that is not blackmail. The courts will rule it to not be blackmail. No matter how many times you click your ruby slippers and repeat it, it does not suddenly turn it into blackmail. CNN simply did what they are required to do to protect this man and no, they should not be punished for protecting him, no matter how much of an asshole either of them may be.

I added some ONLINE situations in the other post BTW. Simply because online laws are lagging behind, expect all the laws that apply in the rest of society to get there in time. They have already arrested numerous people for racist threats online, and I provided you a few links of example already. If you had read them, you would see those others were posted online not offline.

No one is entitled to threaten others. The end.

You're right. It's not blackmail. It's coercion. SO much better.

And such protection too. "Apologize for making a GIF making fun of us, and we WON'T reveal your information." Guess I need to go apologize to some mobsters.

Lil devils x:

No, that is not blackmail. The courts will rule it to not be blackmail. No matter how many times you click your ruby slippers and repeat it, it does not suddenly turn it into blackmail. CNN simply did what they are required to do to protect this man and no, they should not be punished for protecting him, no matter how much of an asshole either of them may be.

I added some ONLINE situations in the other post BTW. Simply because online laws are lagging behind, expect all the laws that apply in the rest of society to get there in time. They have already arrested numerous people for racist threats online, and I provided you a few links of example already. If you had read them, you would see those others were posted online not offline.

No one is entitled to threaten others. The end.

I agree, no one is entitled to actually threaten someone online. It is a shame then that you allow CNN free rein to do exactly that solely because you think the person done to is an acceptable target for posting something you found offensive.

Your examples still fail to address the distinctions I mentioned before.

Your examples either do one or both of the following:

A. Represent actual threats, not shitposting. There is a difference, validity, clarity and intent to act upon them are all part of it, and someone saying "I will shot you tomorrow" and someone going "I wish someone would shot that asshole" are not both threats.

B. Are tied directly to the person's identity. Anything on facebook does this. This differs from an anonymous board. Someone publicly tying their identity to their words being said earnestly is not the same thing as an anonymous shitposter trying to be provocative or just racist for the lulz. This part applies to CNN's justification in tracking the identity down and threatening to reveal it. Now the blackmail attempt itself is not justifiable in the first place, but even if they just release the info outright, it would not be similar to those stories you linked to because an anonymous identity being doxxed is not comparable to a publicly provided identity being reported on.

As for online laws lagging behind offline, you have a point, but I allowed that to be shelved to concentrate on the real point you tried to raise. I even provided an analogy of a real-world counterpart to do so, rendering this attempted deflection worthless.

A real-world counterpart of the forum and the poster would be a private raunchy comedy club and a guy who does his routine with a mask. His words there, regardless how horrible they are, would not fit your attempted use of the "fighting rules" doctrine. Because of both the private nature of the club and the fact he is not directing his words at a specific individual or individuals, it does not constitute an argument that it is inciting a fight or inciting a breach of the peace. It does not matter that the law itself doesn't even apply to online things in a clear way yet, even in the real world it would not apply.

So again, I repeat what I have been saying for far too many posts to you. Your examples are not comparable to the shitposter, posting more examples that are not doesn't mean anything to the discussion when they still aren't comparable.

Metalix Knightmare:

Lil devils x:


No, that is not blackmail. The courts will rule it to not be blackmail. No matter how many times you click your ruby slippers and repeat it, it does not suddenly turn it into blackmail. CNN simply did what they are required to do to protect this man and no, they should not be punished for protecting him, no matter how much of an asshole either of them may be.

I added some ONLINE situations in the other post BTW. Simply because online laws are lagging behind, expect all the laws that apply in the rest of society to get there in time. They have already arrested numerous people for racist threats online, and I provided you a few links of example already. If you had read them, you would see those others were posted online not offline.

No one is entitled to threaten others. The end.

You're right. It's not blackmail. It's coercion. SO much better.

And such protection too. "Apologize for making a GIF making fun of us, and we WON'T reveal your information." Guess I need to go apologize to some mobsters.

Except none of that happened, according to the gif creator.
1) He apologized BEFORE talking to CNN. They never asked him to apologize.
2) He didn't apologize for the gif, he apologized for pretending to be a terrorist and wanted to let people know he wasn't going to hurt anyone.
3)He is the one calling CNN, not the other way around.
4) He said that he was not threatened in any way.
5) Yes, protection, the guy who was kind enough to protect him has been receiving death threats.
6)The gif creator is not endanger from CNN, he is endanger of so called supporters who are making up a ton of things about him since they apparently think they know better than he does. He is a grown middle aged man, but they know what happened better than he does? The more they make up stuff about this guy, the increased chance of some 2bit other news agency that has no desire to protect him finds out who he is and reveals his identity to be able to get in on the action and get some clicks sent their way. His "supporters" are causing him to feel threatened and targeted, not CNN. His "supporters" do not care about what actually happens to him , instead many would be fine if he actually did get DOXED by a 3rd party so maybe he would go attempt suicide so they could claim " CNN caused this guy to suicide" nonsense. The reality here is that CNN is protecting him, not these people threatening CNN. The gif creator just wants them to stop.

All CNN did was follow the Journalism code of ethics step by step to create their required legal statement and people got in a tizzy over nothing. When you actually look at the Journalism code of ethics and ask the required questions and follow the steps in order, it looks like their statement step by step. And people are mad about this? YIKES. Even funnier they could care less about actual doxing going on while whining about this non doxing. ANYHOW, all that information with links is provided in the other thread in the proper forum for that, since this one was created to solely discuss the comparison between this and gamergate. SNN has done many bad things, however, this is not one of them.

runic knight:

Lil devils x:

No, that is not blackmail. The courts will rule it to not be blackmail. No matter how many times you click your ruby slippers and repeat it, it does not suddenly turn it into blackmail. CNN simply did what they are required to do to protect this man and no, they should not be punished for protecting him, no matter how much of an asshole either of them may be.

I added some ONLINE situations in the other post BTW. Simply because online laws are lagging behind, expect all the laws that apply in the rest of society to get there in time. They have already arrested numerous people for racist threats online, and I provided you a few links of example already. If you had read them, you would see those others were posted online not offline.

No one is entitled to threaten others. The end.

I agree, no one is entitled to actually threaten someone online. It is a shame then that you allow CNN free rein to do exactly that solely because you think the person done to is an acceptable target for posting something you found offensive.

Your examples still fail to address the distinctions I mentioned before.

Your examples either do one or both of the following:

A. Represent actual threats, not shitposting. There is a difference, validity, clarity and intent to act upon them are all part of it, and someone saying "I will shot you tomorrow" and someone going "I wish someone would shot that asshole" are not both threats.

B. Are tied directly to the person's identity. Anything on facebook does this. This differs from an anonymous board. Someone publicly tying their identity to their words being said earnestly is not the same thing as an anonymous shitposter trying to be provocative or just racist for the lulz. This part applies to CNN's justification in tracking the identity down and threatening to reveal it. Now the blackmail attempt itself is not justifiable in the first place, but even if they just release the info outright, it would not be similar to those stories you linked to because an anonymous identity being doxxed is not comparable to a publicly provided identity being reported on.

As for online laws lagging behind offline, you have a point, but I allowed that to be shelved to concentrate on the real point you tried to raise. I even provided an analogy of a real-world counterpart to do so, rendering this attempted deflection worthless.

A real-world counterpart of the forum and the poster would be a private raunchy comedy club and a guy who does his routine with a mask. His words there, regardless how horrible they are, would not fit your attempted use of the "fighting rules" doctrine. Because of both the private nature of the club and the fact he is not directing his words at a specific individual or individuals, it does not constitute an argument that it is inciting a fight or inciting a breach of the peace. It does not matter that the law itself doesn't even apply to online things in a clear way yet, even in the real world it would not apply.

So again, I repeat what I have been saying for far too many posts to you. Your examples are not comparable to the shitposter, posting more examples that are not doesn't mean anything to the discussion when they still aren't comparable.

Did you even read the links provided earlier? " ACTUAL THREATS" according to the guy who made the threats, he wasn't serious. Apparently he was was shit posting and was charged regardless. Shitposting is NO defense.
ANYONE can go around making threats and claim they were joking. That does not mean that is legal or okay in any way.
You appear to be convinced that shitposting is some sort of defense. it is not and never will be. It is delusional to think the courts would ever take shitposting as a defense.

Lil devils x:

Metalix Knightmare:

Lil devils x:


No, that is not blackmail. The courts will rule it to not be blackmail. No matter how many times you click your ruby slippers and repeat it, it does not suddenly turn it into blackmail. CNN simply did what they are required to do to protect this man and no, they should not be punished for protecting him, no matter how much of an asshole either of them may be.

I added some ONLINE situations in the other post BTW. Simply because online laws are lagging behind, expect all the laws that apply in the rest of society to get there in time. They have already arrested numerous people for racist threats online, and I provided you a few links of example already. If you had read them, you would see those others were posted online not offline.

No one is entitled to threaten others. The end.

You're right. It's not blackmail. It's coercion. SO much better.

And such protection too. "Apologize for making a GIF making fun of us, and we WON'T reveal your information." Guess I need to go apologize to some mobsters.

Except none of that happened, according to the gif creator.
1) He apologized BEFORE talking to CNN. They never asked him to apologize.
2) He didn't apologize for the gif, he apologized for pretending to be a terrorist and wanted to let people know he wasn't going to hurt anyone.
3)He is the one calling CNN, not the other way around.
4) He said that he was not threatened in any way.
5) Yes, protection, the guy who was kind enough to protect him has been receiving death threats.
6)The gif creator is not endanger from CNN, he is endanger of so called supporters who are making up a ton of things about him since they apparently think they know better than he does. He is a grown middle aged man, but they know what happened better than he does? The more they make up stuff about this guy, the increased chance of some 2bit other news agency that has no desire to protect him finds out who he is and reveals his identity to be able to get in on the action and get some clicks sent their way. His "supporters" are causing him to feel threatened and targeted, not CNN. His "supporters" do not care about what actually happens to him , instead many would be fine if he actually did get DOXED by a 3rd party so maybe he would go attempt suicide so they could claim " CNN caused this guy to suicide" nonsense. The reality here is that CNN is protecting him, not these people threatening CNN. The gif creator just wants them to stop.

All CNN did was follow the Journalism code of ethics step by step to create their required legal statement and people got in a tizzy over nothing. When you actually look at the Journalism code of ethics and ask the required questions and follow the steps in order, it looks like their statement step by step. And people are mad about this? YIKES. Even funnier they could care less about actual doxing going on while whining about this non doxing. ANYHOW, all that information with links is provided in the other thread in the proper forum for that, since this one was created to solely discuss the comparison between this and gamergate. SNN has done many bad things, however, this is not one of them.

Okay, are we talking about the same guy? Cause the terrorist thing is new to me. I was talking about the guy who made the GIF of Trump beating up a guy at WWF with the CNN logo pasted on the other guy's head.

Y'know, the thing that has THIS associated with it.

image

Metalix Knightmare:

Y'know, the thing that has THIS associated with it.

image

Yes, because as we all know, when you blackmail someone, you make it as publicly known as possible. Blackmail totally works that way and it is definitely not awkwardly worded legalese.

altnameJag:

Metalix Knightmare:

Y'know, the thing that has THIS associated with it.

image

Yes, because as we all know, when you blackmail someone, you make it as publicly known as possible. Blackmail totally works that way and it is definitely not awkwardly worded legalese.

Once again, coercion. And we're talking about Ex-Buzzfeed writers that CNN hired who are basically throwing a shit fit over a gif. You're attributing more brains and humility to them than I would.

altnameJag:
Yes, because as we all know, when you blackmail someone, you make it as publicly known as possible. Blackmail totally works that way and it is definitely not awkwardly worded legalese.

I don't know why people have to play dumb like this every step of the way. Does it ever work?

Of course they would "make it as publicly known as possible", it was all about mass intimidation. "Considering making fun of your Information Overlords? See how CNN will hunt you down if you do, just like this guy." It's a symptom of the terminal hubris of their Late Imperial Phase that it didn't occur to them it might be seen as a tad controversial to flex their muscles like that at private citizens.

Metalix Knightmare:

Lil devils x:

Metalix Knightmare:

You're right. It's not blackmail. It's coercion. SO much better.

And such protection too. "Apologize for making a GIF making fun of us, and we WON'T reveal your information." Guess I need to go apologize to some mobsters.

Except none of that happened, according to the gif creator.
1) He apologized BEFORE talking to CNN. They never asked him to apologize.
2) He didn't apologize for the gif, he apologized for pretending to be a terrorist and wanted to let people know he wasn't going to hurt anyone.
3)He is the one calling CNN, not the other way around.
4) He said that he was not threatened in any way.
5) Yes, protection, the guy who was kind enough to protect him has been receiving death threats.
6)The gif creator is not endanger from CNN, he is endanger of so called supporters who are making up a ton of things about him since they apparently think they know better than he does. He is a grown middle aged man, but they know what happened better than he does? The more they make up stuff about this guy, the increased chance of some 2bit other news agency that has no desire to protect him finds out who he is and reveals his identity to be able to get in on the action and get some clicks sent their way. His "supporters" are causing him to feel threatened and targeted, not CNN. His "supporters" do not care about what actually happens to him , instead many would be fine if he actually did get DOXED by a 3rd party so maybe he would go attempt suicide so they could claim " CNN caused this guy to suicide" nonsense. The reality here is that CNN is protecting him, not these people threatening CNN. The gif creator just wants them to stop.

All CNN did was follow the Journalism code of ethics step by step to create their required legal statement and people got in a tizzy over nothing. When you actually look at the Journalism code of ethics and ask the required questions and follow the steps in order, it looks like their statement step by step. And people are mad about this? YIKES. Even funnier they could care less about actual doxing going on while whining about this non doxing. ANYHOW, all that information with links is provided in the other thread in the proper forum for that, since this one was created to solely discuss the comparison between this and gamergate. SNN has done many bad things, however, this is not one of them.

Okay, are we talking about the same guy? Cause the terrorist thing is new to me. I was talking about the guy who made the GIF of Trump beating up a guy at WWF with the CNN logo pasted on the other guy's head.

Y'know, the thing that has THIS associated with it.

image

The problem here is you do not know who we are talking or what has actually happened about because you jumped on board the rage train without getting all the information first.
If you had actually read his apology, you would plainly see he is not apologizing for the gif, he is apologizing for being a pretend terrorist:

"First of all, I would like to apologize to the members of the reddit community for getting this site and this sub embroiled in a controversy that should never have happened," he wrote. "I would also like to apologize for the posts made that were racist, bigoted, and anti-semitic. I am in no way this kind of person, I love and accept people of all walks of life and have done so for my entire life. I am not the person that the media portrays me to be in real life, I was trolling and posting things to get a reaction from the subs on reddit and never meant any of the hateful things I said in those posts.I would never support any kind of violence or actions against others simply for what they believe in, their religion, or the lifestyle they choose to have. Nor would I carry out any violence against anyone based upon that or support anyone who did."

THIS is what he is actually apologizing for:
http://imgur.com/a/hfUAo
( among other things because this was only a portion of he had actually said)
It is pretty clear what he is apologizing for.

He had requested anonymity, so they pulled out the journalism code of ethics for what they are supposed to do when that happens.
YOU have to understand anonymity is the exception in journalism in the US, not the rule and they have a format and statement they are required to add:
Journalism code of Ethics:

Consider sources motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

So what motives should they consider before granting anonymity?
How should they explain why anonymity should be granted?
How should they legally reserve their rights to publish identity if the requester changes his mind and decides to act on these terrorist threats and they cover the story?

They did this step by step when you look at it:
let's breakdown their REQUIRED statement:

CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

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

What motives?
He doesn't want people to find out he said he wanted genocide carried out and he wanted to participate in it because that would ruin his life.
Why are they granting him anonymity?

They think he deserves anonymity because He has issued an apology for his racist and homicidal tirades and removed them and let people know he isn't going to hurt anyone before he even contacted CNN so hopefully as long as he is sincere that he isn't going to harm anyone there is no point in letting everyone in his community know what is happening so they will be afraid of him. If he is sincere, he would not be posting these things anymore.

How should they legally reserve their rights if he decides to go back to threatening people or actually harms someone? Tell them that as long as he keeps his word, they will not do so.
Pretty much looks exactly like what they did there. That is what you call a Journalism code of ethics anonymity and reserving rights statement by the book.

"HanAssholeSolo" posted his apology before we *ever* spoke him. He called us afterwards to apologize further.

FYI "HanAssholeSolo" just called me."I am in total agreement with your statement. I was not threatened in anyway."

Need to point out again HanAssholeSolo is a middle aged man. People claiming he's 15 are wrong. Some are intentionally spreading this.

https://twitter.com/KFILE?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fblogs%2Fthe_slatest%2F2017%2F07%2F05%2Freddit_user_hanassholesolo_apologizes_for_trump_cnn_gif_cnn_covers_with.html

So yea, not only are the accusations being hurled at CNN not true, they are actually harmful to the guy they are 'supposedly' trying to protect. CNN does a ton of things wrong, but they actually did this one by the book, just people don't know that because someone else grabbed this and ran with it making up a bunch of stuff that was not even true and is harmful to the guy they are protecting. He only wants them to stop, but the longer they scream CNN is threatening him, the longer he remains in the spotlight and the more likely so other news bait click agency will find him out and just put his ID out to get click bait. What IS messed up here is CNN is protecting this guy and the reporter who was kind to him is receiving death threats for it. How many people do you think that are ranting about this know ANY of this information yet?

StatusNil:

altnameJag:
Yes, because as we all know, when you blackmail someone, you make it as publicly known as possible. Blackmail totally works that way and it is definitely not awkwardly worded legalese.

I don't know why people have to play dumb like this every step of the way. Does it ever work?

Of course they would "make it as publicly known as possible", it was all about mass intimidation. "Considering making fun of your Information Overlords? See how CNN will hunt you down if you do, just like this guy." It's a symptom of the terminal hubris of their Late Imperial Phase that it didn't occur to them it might be seen as a tad controversial to flex their muscles like that at private citizens.

LMAO, that made me think of the A- team in a CNN news truck with Mr. T having a microphone hanging from his gold bling. OMG. (oh and the OLD a-team not the imposer wimpy A-team)

Just out of sheer curiosity, what does any of this have to do with gaming or the gaming industry? Despite your assertion otherwise, I'm pretty sure this belongs in R&P.

DarthCoercis:
Just out of sheer curiosity, what does any of this have to do with gaming or the gaming industry? Despite your assertion otherwise, I'm pretty sure this belongs in R&P.

Any discussion of gamergate was barred from R&P long ago. This post was to directly address opinions on Gamergate and doxing as requested. GID is the ONLY forum that Gamergate discussion is allowed, even in how it relates to other subjects. It appears you were not here in August of 2014 to understand why this is the way it is now.

However, you are correct that If the content does not relate to Gamergate and DOXING, then it should be posted in the CNN thread, not this one as that would be offtopic. Due to past damagae and drain on the other forums " he who shall not be named" ( gamergate) is not allowed to be mentioned, discussed, or referred to in any forum but this one. Those who survived the madness are all mostly aware of this, as we requested to make it happen. I am as guilty as others for going off topic, but will now refer such discussion to the other thread. I added to the OP in bold and link to clarify.

My intention was to fully assert that targeting people for attack and dogpiling them was not okay regardless of if gamergate or non gamer gate was doing so or not. And in the instance of gamergate, they frequently targeted people who were not anonymous, but they should not expect to remain anonymous while they are attacking others. If you are targeting others, you blew your expectation of anonymity as it is. IF you target, threaten or attack someone who is not anonymous, then you should expect them to find out who you are.

In addition, if you threaten ANYONE for that matter, they should find out who you are. Threatening people at all is not okay. I do believe runic brought up gamergate in the other thread as it relates to both DOXING and ethics in journalism. During gamer gate, not only were Gaming journalists targeted, but also other media sources such as BBC and CNN as well because Gamergaters did not agree with their coverage of the story. In fact, even the escapist was targeted and on their boycott list for a very long time.

Lil devils x:

Metalix Knightmare:

Lil devils x:

Except none of that happened, according to the gif creator.
1) He apologized BEFORE talking to CNN. They never asked him to apologize.
2) He didn't apologize for the gif, he apologized for pretending to be a terrorist and wanted to let people know he wasn't going to hurt anyone.
3)He is the one calling CNN, not the other way around.
4) He said that he was not threatened in any way.
5) Yes, protection, the guy who was kind enough to protect him has been receiving death threats.
6)The gif creator is not endanger from CNN, he is endanger of so called supporters who are making up a ton of things about him since they apparently think they know better than he does. He is a grown middle aged man, but they know what happened better than he does? The more they make up stuff about this guy, the increased chance of some 2bit other news agency that has no desire to protect him finds out who he is and reveals his identity to be able to get in on the action and get some clicks sent their way. His "supporters" are causing him to feel threatened and targeted, not CNN. His "supporters" do not care about what actually happens to him , instead many would be fine if he actually did get DOXED by a 3rd party so maybe he would go attempt suicide so they could claim " CNN caused this guy to suicide" nonsense. The reality here is that CNN is protecting him, not these people threatening CNN. The gif creator just wants them to stop.

All CNN did was follow the Journalism code of ethics step by step to create their required legal statement and people got in a tizzy over nothing. When you actually look at the Journalism code of ethics and ask the required questions and follow the steps in order, it looks like their statement step by step. And people are mad about this? YIKES. Even funnier they could care less about actual doxing going on while whining about this non doxing. ANYHOW, all that information with links is provided in the other thread in the proper forum for that, since this one was created to solely discuss the comparison between this and gamergate. SNN has done many bad things, however, this is not one of them.

Okay, are we talking about the same guy? Cause the terrorist thing is new to me. I was talking about the guy who made the GIF of Trump beating up a guy at WWF with the CNN logo pasted on the other guy's head.

Y'know, the thing that has THIS associated with it.

image

The problem here is you do not know who we are talking or what has actually happened about because you jumped on board the rage train without getting all the information first.
If you had actually read his apology, you would plainly see he is not apologizing for the gif, he is apologizing for being a pretend terrorist:

"First of all, I would like to apologize to the members of the reddit community for getting this site and this sub embroiled in a controversy that should never have happened," he wrote. "I would also like to apologize for the posts made that were racist, bigoted, and anti-semitic. I am in no way this kind of person, I love and accept people of all walks of life and have done so for my entire life. I am not the person that the media portrays me to be in real life, I was trolling and posting things to get a reaction from the subs on reddit and never meant any of the hateful things I said in those posts.I would never support any kind of violence or actions against others simply for what they believe in, their religion, or the lifestyle they choose to have. Nor would I carry out any violence against anyone based upon that or support anyone who did."

THIS is what he is actually apologizing for:
http://imgur.com/a/hfUAo
( among other things because this was only a portion of he had actually said)
It is pretty clear what he is apologizing for.

He had requested anonymity, so they pulled out the journalism code of ethics for what they are supposed to do when that happens.
YOU have to understand anonymity is the exception in journalism in the US, not the rule and they have a format and statement they are required to add:
Journalism code of Ethics:

Consider sources motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

So what motives should they consider before granting anonymity?
How should they explain why anonymity should be granted?
How should they legally reserve their rights to publish identity if the requester changes his mind and decides to act on these terrorist threats and they cover the story?

They did this step by step when you look at it:
let's breakdown their REQUIRED statement:

CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

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

What motives?
He doesn't want people to find out he said he wanted genocide carried out and he wanted to participate in it because that would ruin his life.
Why are they granting him anonymity?

They think he deserves anonymity because He has issued an apology for his racist and homicidal tirades and removed them and let people know he isn't going to hurt anyone before he even contacted CNN so hopefully as long as he is sincere that he isn't going to harm anyone there is no point in letting everyone in his community know what is happening so they will be afraid of him. If he is sincere, he would not be posting these things anymore.

How should they legally reserve their rights if he decides to go back to threatening people or actually harms someone? Tell them that as long as he keeps his word, they will not do so.
Pretty much looks exactly like what they did there. That is what you call a Journalism code of ethics anonymity and reserving rights statement by the book.

"HanAssholeSolo" posted his apology before we *ever* spoke him. He called us afterwards to apologize further.

FYI "HanAssholeSolo" just called me."I am in total agreement with your statement. I was not threatened in anyway."

Need to point out again HanAssholeSolo is a middle aged man. People claiming he's 15 are wrong. Some are intentionally spreading this.

https://twitter.com/KFILE?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fblogs%2Fthe_slatest%2F2017%2F07%2F05%2Freddit_user_hanassholesolo_apologizes_for_trump_cnn_gif_cnn_covers_with.html

So yea, not only are the accusations being hurled at CNN not true, they are actually harmful to the guy they are 'supposedly' trying to protect. CNN does a ton of things wrong, but they actually did this one by the book, just people don't know that because someone else grabbed this and ran with it making up a bunch of stuff that was not even true and is harmful to the guy they are protecting. He only wants them to stop, but the longer they scream CNN is threatening him, the longer he remains in the spotlight and the more likely so other news bait click agency will find him out and just put his ID out to get click bait. What IS messed up here is CNN is protecting this guy and the reporter who was kind to him is receiving death threats for it. How many people do you think that are ranting about this know ANY of this information yet?

One last question then, which Reddit did he post all that in?

Metalix Knightmare:

Lil devils x:

Metalix Knightmare:

Okay, are we talking about the same guy? Cause the terrorist thing is new to me. I was talking about the guy who made the GIF of Trump beating up a guy at WWF with the CNN logo pasted on the other guy's head.

Y'know, the thing that has THIS associated with it.

image

The problem here is you do not know who we are talking or what has actually happened about because you jumped on board the rage train without getting all the information first.
If you had actually read his apology, you would plainly see he is not apologizing for the gif, he is apologizing for being a pretend terrorist:

"First of all, I would like to apologize to the members of the reddit community for getting this site and this sub embroiled in a controversy that should never have happened," he wrote. "I would also like to apologize for the posts made that were racist, bigoted, and anti-semitic. I am in no way this kind of person, I love and accept people of all walks of life and have done so for my entire life. I am not the person that the media portrays me to be in real life, I was trolling and posting things to get a reaction from the subs on reddit and never meant any of the hateful things I said in those posts.I would never support any kind of violence or actions against others simply for what they believe in, their religion, or the lifestyle they choose to have. Nor would I carry out any violence against anyone based upon that or support anyone who did."

THIS is what he is actually apologizing for:
http://imgur.com/a/hfUAo
( among other things because this was only a portion of he had actually said)
It is pretty clear what he is apologizing for.

He had requested anonymity, so they pulled out the journalism code of ethics for what they are supposed to do when that happens.
YOU have to understand anonymity is the exception in journalism in the US, not the rule and they have a format and statement they are required to add:
Journalism code of Ethics:

Consider sources motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

So what motives should they consider before granting anonymity?
How should they explain why anonymity should be granted?
How should they legally reserve their rights to publish identity if the requester changes his mind and decides to act on these terrorist threats and they cover the story?

They did this step by step when you look at it:
let's breakdown their REQUIRED statement:

CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

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

What motives?
He doesn't want people to find out he said he wanted genocide carried out and he wanted to participate in it because that would ruin his life.
Why are they granting him anonymity?

They think he deserves anonymity because He has issued an apology for his racist and homicidal tirades and removed them and let people know he isn't going to hurt anyone before he even contacted CNN so hopefully as long as he is sincere that he isn't going to harm anyone there is no point in letting everyone in his community know what is happening so they will be afraid of him. If he is sincere, he would not be posting these things anymore.

How should they legally reserve their rights if he decides to go back to threatening people or actually harms someone? Tell them that as long as he keeps his word, they will not do so.
Pretty much looks exactly like what they did there. That is what you call a Journalism code of ethics anonymity and reserving rights statement by the book.

"HanAssholeSolo" posted his apology before we *ever* spoke him. He called us afterwards to apologize further.

FYI "HanAssholeSolo" just called me."I am in total agreement with your statement. I was not threatened in anyway."

Need to point out again HanAssholeSolo is a middle aged man. People claiming he's 15 are wrong. Some are intentionally spreading this.

https://twitter.com/KFILE?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fblogs%2Fthe_slatest%2F2017%2F07%2F05%2Freddit_user_hanassholesolo_apologizes_for_trump_cnn_gif_cnn_covers_with.html

So yea, not only are the accusations being hurled at CNN not true, they are actually harmful to the guy they are 'supposedly' trying to protect. CNN does a ton of things wrong, but they actually did this one by the book, just people don't know that because someone else grabbed this and ran with it making up a bunch of stuff that was not even true and is harmful to the guy they are protecting. He only wants them to stop, but the longer they scream CNN is threatening him, the longer he remains in the spotlight and the more likely so other news bait click agency will find him out and just put his ID out to get click bait. What IS messed up here is CNN is protecting this guy and the reporter who was kind to him is receiving death threats for it. How many people do you think that are ranting about this know ANY of this information yet?

One last question then, which Reddit did he post all that in?

Different boards, they said much of it was in The_ Donald, however that was not the only place he had posted.
They only gave us a snippet of what he had posted however, he apparently had much more they only snipped to give people an understanding of the content.

Lil devils x:

runic knight:

Lil devils x:

No, that is not blackmail. The courts will rule it to not be blackmail. No matter how many times you click your ruby slippers and repeat it, it does not suddenly turn it into blackmail. CNN simply did what they are required to do to protect this man and no, they should not be punished for protecting him, no matter how much of an asshole either of them may be.

I added some ONLINE situations in the other post BTW. Simply because online laws are lagging behind, expect all the laws that apply in the rest of society to get there in time. They have already arrested numerous people for racist threats online, and I provided you a few links of example already. If you had read them, you would see those others were posted online not offline.

No one is entitled to threaten others. The end.

I agree, no one is entitled to actually threaten someone online. It is a shame then that you allow CNN free rein to do exactly that solely because you think the person done to is an acceptable target for posting something you found offensive.

Your examples still fail to address the distinctions I mentioned before.

Your examples either do one or both of the following:

A. Represent actual threats, not shitposting. There is a difference, validity, clarity and intent to act upon them are all part of it, and someone saying "I will shot you tomorrow" and someone going "I wish someone would shot that asshole" are not both threats.

B. Are tied directly to the person's identity. Anything on facebook does this. This differs from an anonymous board. Someone publicly tying their identity to their words being said earnestly is not the same thing as an anonymous shitposter trying to be provocative or just racist for the lulz. This part applies to CNN's justification in tracking the identity down and threatening to reveal it. Now the blackmail attempt itself is not justifiable in the first place, but even if they just release the info outright, it would not be similar to those stories you linked to because an anonymous identity being doxxed is not comparable to a publicly provided identity being reported on.

As for online laws lagging behind offline, you have a point, but I allowed that to be shelved to concentrate on the real point you tried to raise. I even provided an analogy of a real-world counterpart to do so, rendering this attempted deflection worthless.

A real-world counterpart of the forum and the poster would be a private raunchy comedy club and a guy who does his routine with a mask. His words there, regardless how horrible they are, would not fit your attempted use of the "fighting rules" doctrine. Because of both the private nature of the club and the fact he is not directing his words at a specific individual or individuals, it does not constitute an argument that it is inciting a fight or inciting a breach of the peace. It does not matter that the law itself doesn't even apply to online things in a clear way yet, even in the real world it would not apply.

So again, I repeat what I have been saying for far too many posts to you. Your examples are not comparable to the shitposter, posting more examples that are not doesn't mean anything to the discussion when they still aren't comparable.

Did you even read the links provided earlier? " ACTUAL THREATS" according to the guy who made the threats, he wasn't serious. Apparently he was was shit posting and was charged regardless. Shitposting is NO defense.
ANYONE can go around making threats and claim they were joking. That does not mean that is legal or okay in any way.
You appear to be convinced that shitposting is some sort of defense. it is not and never will be. It is delusional to think the courts would ever take shitposting as a defense.

Yes, I did read your links. Did you read my reply? Here, from the reply you quote there.

"A. Represent actual threats, not shitposting. There is a difference, validity, clarity and intent to act upon them are all part of it, and someone saying "I will shot you tomorrow" and someone going "I wish someone would shot that asshole" are not both threats."

My defense is not that he was claiming it was shitposting in general, but that he was shitposting stuff that lacked the very definition of what legally enforceable as a threat, and in a location where such posts are commonplace thus undermining any argument that he specifically was a threat to be acted upon, let alone one that would excuse a vigilante CNN reporter openly blackmailing him into silencing himself.

His posts have no specifics, are directed at no individual or organization directly, and are within context of the forum itself (one built around allowing such posts) no more indicative of a threat of real action from him than any other user of it. The best you have to argue intent to commit is an "I'll join you" style post, toward a general notion of support rather than any specific event, occurance, or threat another user made.

You have nothing but your own outrage at his words here and as valid as that outrage for his racist tirade, that racism is not a threat itself. Pretending otherwise solely to justify the actions of CNN only undermines your stance with the dishonesty of your claim.

The fact it isn't a real threat is why CNN didn't care about reporting on him, because there was NO threat involved. You are the only one arguing that it was a real threat, solely as part of your defense of CNN's actions. You have not addressed the hypocrisy of CNN not having the police intervene with a "real" threat and instead aided him, nor have you addressed the various examples of even more direct threats promoted by the media (Deep's threat to the president's life and Kathy Griffin's beheading are both directed specifically towards an individual, expressing greater intent behind them than a shitposter bitching about muslims in a discussion in the wake of a muslim terrorist attack in london).

So no, it is not a legitimate threat for him to go "I hope bad shit happens to them" in a place where they are not physically there (so no "fighting rules" argument) and a place where such bullshit is the norm.

Again I refer to my analogy of a raunchy private comedy club and a journalist blackmailing a member solely because he was butthurt about a joke someone else used.

Amazing how much you deflect and defend someone who was openly threatening someone though. But with how much you are concentrating on demonizing him and claiming he is a terrorist, it just shows that you are fine with people being doxed and thus targeted for abuse and harm, just as long as they support ideas you dislike. How very authoritarian of you. Would you be as supportive of such practices when political agendas you don't support start to abuse that same power?

I also have the question from before for clarification.

Do you think that it is justifiable to punish someone socially, emotionally and even physically for posting something you or someone else is offended by?

Oh, and just cause I caught it while reading and know for a fact I already addressed it before.

What he was apologizing for was not just the posts but the meme as well and the fact the president used it, all to the tune of the exact media narrative from before

The user further apologized for calls for violence against the press in his statement on Reddit.
"The meme was created purely as satire, it was not meant to be a call to violence against CNN or any other news affiliation," he wrote. "I had no idea anyone would take it and put sound to it and then have it put up on the President's Twitter feed. It was a prank, nothing more. What the President's feed showed was not the original post that was posted here, but loaded up somewhere else and sound added to it then sent out on Twitter. I thought it was the original post that was made and that is why I took credit for it. I have the highest respect for the journalist community and they put their lives on the line every day with the jobs that they do in reporting the news."

Because nothing looks more like a sincerely and totally not coerced apology like repeating the exact story narrative of the news agency who just contacted you, and done in your apology that is immediately reported on with an open threat of revealing personal info.


So you are saying if a threat is directed at someone it is a threat and if it is not it is shitposting?

The apology was not coerced since he made it before calling them and was not asked to apologize by CNN in the first place. You know, people DO apologize, hell I even saw gamergaters apologize on their own for behaving like an ass. He is a grown man, if he wants to apologize who are you to tell him you think he was force to. He doesn't seem to think he was forced to, but of course, you know better than he does.

I like how you think what you say about him matters more than what he says about him. You do not speak for him, he can speak for himself and he ALREADY has. You know that was one of the things that was most annoying about gamergaters, was they somehow thought they spoke for " gamers" no matter how many games spoke up and told them they didn't. Instead of listening to what people tell them,, they just kept going along with their own disillusion narrative regardless of if anyone supposedly involved with that narrative went along with it or not. That is what I see you doing here. The guy does not agree with you, he said he has not been threatened in any way. He made his apology on his own before talking to CNN. You still think you know better than he does, when you are not even involved.

BTW.. guess what, some of his posts WERE directed at someone. He thinks they were bad enough to apologize for, I have no idea why you think you know better than he does. He is a grown man and you are not his mommy. You do not speak for him.

Lil devils x:
Other thread complaints

Considering this thread exists solely because you didn't want to give a simple answer in that thread, and this relates to doxxing in general, I don't really care if you want to keep tossing the puck around to different threads to talk about the same topic. I post here cause they is where you replied to it. That you want to over-complicate a simple question on my part from there into a multi-thread one I really can't understand, I merely have to deal with.

So you are saying if a threat is directed at someone it is a threat and if it is not it is shitposting?

No. I am saying that in order for something to be legally defined as a terrorist threat, it has to met the basic legal definition of that. That requires it being directed at some individual, group or agency that receives and can react to it, places a fear of immediate harm, and reveals an intent to enact.

Shitposting is none of those.

Taken from a site

The second component is the intent of the threat. People make casual threats every day. To separate the playful threats from the serious or disturbing ones, states add a component requiring that the intent of the threat to be for some specific, illegal purpose. Some intent examples used in varying states include: intent to terrorize victim, intent to disrupt public operation or event, intent to intimidate a witness, and intent to scare a police officer. Intent to terrorize is the most common type of intent required. The other types of intent will be set out in the state?s penal codes. Intent is inferred from the statement and the circumstances surrounding the statement. Many defendants do not contest that the statement was made, but rather the intent behind the statement.

You want to argue the posts were horrible and racist and I will agree with you. But if you want to start arguing it being illegal activity worthy of investigation or that they are terrorist threats, then I have to call that out for being wrong.

The apology was not coerced since he made it before calling them and was not asked to apologize by CNN in the first place. You know, people DO apologize, hell I even saw gamergaters apologize on their own for behaving like an ass. He is a grown man, if he wants to apologize who are you to tell him you think he was force to. He doesn't seem to think he was forced to, but of course, you know better than he does.

CNN contacted the guy first. They reporter clearly admitted so, both on twitter and in the article. The guy then posted the apology and deleted his stuff. Then he contacted them in reply.

The timetable provided by both tweet and article specify that the journalist sent the message to the guy first. From the article itself.

Article:
The apology came after CNN's KFile identified the man behind "HanA**holeSolo." Using identifying information that "HanA**holeSolo" posted on Reddit, KFile was able to determine key biographical details, to find the man's name using a Facebook search and ultimately corroborate details he had made available on Reddit.

On Monday, KFile attempted to contact the man by email and phone but he did not respond. On Tuesday, "HanA**holeSolo" posted his apology on the subreddit /The_Donald and deleted all of his other posts.

They contacted him first. After he apologized and deleted his stuff, he contacted them in return. Please, stop repeating falsehoods you have been corrected on mutliple times now.

I like how you think what you say about him matters more than what he says about him. You do not speak for him, he can speak for himself and he ALREADY has. You know that was one of the things that was most annoying about gamergaters, was they somehow thought they spoke for " gamers" no matter how many games spoke up and told them they didn't. Instead of listening to what people tell them,, they just kept going along with their own disillusion narrative regardless of if anyone supposedly involved with that narrative went along with it or not. That is what I see you doing here. The guy does not agree with you, he said he has not been threatened in any way. He made his apology on his own before talking to CNN. You still think you know better than he does, when you are not even involved.

For someone who has been corrected on details they intentionally persist in getting wrong even after they are corrected, I simply have to shrug at your commentary here. This is a discussion about the events, specifically about a guy being blackmailed. Saying I doubt the sincerity of a guy who looks like he has been coerced into apology is not unreasonable. Hell, it is the primary argument about being opposed to torture. Or would that authoritarian in you support torturing people into pleading guilty as well? A powerful force leveraging their authority into pressure someone they dislike into accepting guilt solely to protect themselves from worse... Does seem right up your alley.

Also, worth adding, from the same article

Article:

I am not the person that the media portrays me to be in real life, I was trolling and posting things to get a reaction from the subs on reddit and never meant any of the hateful things I said in those posts.

This is of course from the apology made immediately after they contacted him. Seems strange for a guy who wasn't reported on previously to make such a statement. Almost looks like a preemptive concern he was going to be unjustly portrayed by the media or has already been.

BTW.. guess what, some of his posts WERE directed at someone. He thinks they were bad enough to apologize for, I have no idea why you think you know better than he does. He is a grown man and you are not his mommy. You do not speak for him.

No, but I can certainly commentate on him as the posts were public and the article itself is.

Hey, guess what? I can do that without threatening to reveal his identity even. Imagine that. Shame an international news agency hasn't learned that trick.

Snarky rebuttal to your pointless self-righteousness here aside, not a thing about what you said in the last two paragraphs matter. We are discussing a public event, which includes critical analysis of parties involved, their motives, their actions, and so on. I am sorry I can't simply listen and believe someone's coerced apology just so I can justify ignoring CNN's very horrible actions. I guess I am just not willing to blindly believe in the name of authoritarianism like you seem to encourage here.

---

I also have the question from before for clarification.

Do you think that it is justifiable to punish someone socially, emotionally and even physically for posting something you or someone else is offended by?

Requesting move to Religion and Politics. Though you are correct this dips into GamerGate, your overall point is chiefly focused on the nature of Doxing/Threats online in general, which is clearly political. This thread has some pretty thorough argumentation going on, so I hope moderators will respect the thread's right to continue, regardless of the controversial subject matter.

The guy's crime is he literally made a harmless gif that mocks a faceless corporation. A multi billion dollar newscorp should not sic the public on him for doing so.

Lil devils x:

Different boards, they said much of it was in The_ Donald, however that was not the only place he had posted.
They only gave us a snippet of what he had posted however, he apparently had much more they only snipped to give people an understanding of the content.

Reason why I ask, is because from what I've gathered one of those boards was specifically made for posting un PC commentary and the like. Basically /pol/ before it became /pol/ which puts a bit of a light on him claiming to be a terrorist.

Also still doesn't change the fact that the only reason we even know about this guy to any degree was because CNN went hunting for him out of sheer butthurt.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here