Trump and his cabinet/buffoonery- Get your bunkers ready!

[RedskinsFan44]

1 minute ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Guarantee this dude is a business owner.  He didn't apologized because he was afraid of being exposed as an unemployed nobody on disability.  He's found himself in a very tough spot because of his actions and the actions of Donald Trump...NOT because of CNN or any other diabolical media.

 

Hes scrambling and scurrying and this is the road he chose for himself.

I'm really surprised some reddit user hasn't figured out who he is and outed him.

[Llevron]

15 minutes ago, Weganator said:

Publishing the identity of content creators not in an effort to praise, litigate? Its more of a 'look at this jerk' kind of thing, but not for a business owner or politician where the public can then actually do even perceived good in the form of a boycott / not voting for them.

 

edit: How does the knowledge of who this person is affect the consumer of this information in any other way than them hoping for / doing harm to them?

 

edit v2: I'm aware that this person's identity hasn't been revealed yet, but that is what the concern is.

 

Public service. 

[LadySkinsFan]

Perhaps debunking these fake news accounts?

 

Anyone who broadcasts fake news deserves to be exposed.

[Weganator]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

 

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;

 

.....

 

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

 

---------

 

Obviously you all wouldn't say that his First Amendment right to free speech was violated because he isn't spouting your particular dogma.

 

But that is a Federal Statute and do you think ole Donny Tiny hands and Sessions don't want a crack at them? Would he have apologized to CNN if they hadn't contacted him with intent to distribute?

[Larry]

20 minutes ago, Weganator said:

Publishing the identity of content creators not in an effort to praise, litigate? Its more of a 'look at this jerk' kind of thing, but not for a business owner or politician where the public can then actually do even perceived good in the form of a boycott / not voting for them.

 

edit: How does the knowledge of who this person is affect the consumer of this information in any other way than them hoping for / doing harm to them?

 

edit v2: I'm aware that this person's identity hasn't been revealed yet, but that is what the concern is.

 

So, 

 

1)  You're assuming that this blackmail story is real?  Or are you simply opposed to revealing this person's identity, as a general thing, whether there was blackmail or not?  

 

2)  And you're asserting that there's some kind of privacy right, that people can not be identified in public unless it's done for the purpose of some public good?  

 

(As to #2, I do think that ethically, there ought to be some kind of standard of decency that news organizations ought to follow.  "Is there a reason to publish this person's identity?"  Not sure it's a law or a rule or something.  Maybe "good manners".  Although I'll point out that the news organizations sure don;t show a lot of restraint when it comes to publishing other people's identity.)  

 

(In fact, I'll point out:  Not publishing this person's identity is an action that really stands out, in this story.  This is by far an exception to normal practice.  Maybe it's something that should happen more often.  But it's outrageously rare, right now.)  

 

[RedskinsFan44]

2 minutes ago, Weganator said:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

 

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;

 

.....

 

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

 

---------

 

Obviously you all wouldn't say that his First Amendment right to free speech was violated because he isn't spouting your particular dogma.

 

But that is a Federal Statute and do you think ole Donny Tiny hands and Sessions don't want a crack at them? Would he have apologized to CNN if they hadn't contacted him with intent to distribute?

Obviously the guy has a first amendment right to say idiotic hateful things.
Does the first amendment give him the right to anonymity?

I have seen differing stories on whether CNN actually threatened him, or is extorting him. I will withhold judgement on that until the thing becomes more clear.

[Larry]

3 minutes ago, Weganator said:

 

 

Obviously you all wouldn't say that his First Amendment right to free speech was violated because he isn't spouting your particular dogma.

 

But that is a Federal Statute and do you think ole Donny Tiny hands and Sessions don't want a crack at them? Would he have apologized to CNN if they hadn't contacted him with intent to distribute?

 

1)  I've been told multiple times, in here, that the First Amendment does not grant a right to anonymous speech.  (Or to speech promoting violence, or multiple other things.)  Or to speech without social repercussions.  

 

2)  How you feel about the Dixie Chicks, and similar cases?  

[Llevron]

7 minutes ago, Weganator said:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

Obviously you all wouldn't say that his First Amendment right to free speech was violated because he isn't spouting your particular dogma.

 

But that is a Federal Statute and do you think ole Donny Tiny hands and Sessions don't want a crack at them? Would he have apologized to CNN if they hadn't contacted him with intent to distribute?

 

Even better, how do you prove intent? Isn't think literally the EXACT SAME THING Trump (thus, the white house) did with Comey and the tapes? He would be wise to leave this one alone. Though, that pretty much grantees it will be addressed lol. 

[Weganator]

5 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Even better, how do you prove intent? Isn't think literally the EXACT SAME THING Trump (thus, the white house) did with Comey and the tapes? He would be wise to leave this one alone. Though, that pretty much grantees it will be addressed lol. 

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.

 

In response to the "Trump tapes", I take that as 'you dont know what I recorded, so assume all of it is and dont try lying in open court'. But I can understand that I have a partisan bias much like we all do. Especially considering the tapes ended up not existing.

 

Edit: How is that not do as I say or else?..

[Cooked Crack]

I think CNN should put this dude on blast. I understand why they didn't. When the guy apologized and contacted them, they considered the story over. If something else develops and the story isn't over then they can publish the guys information. Like let's say the President comments on it. They would not be doing their duty if they didn't report what they knew.

[Larry]

5 minutes ago, Weganator said:

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.

 

Edit: How is that not do as I say or else?

 

So, your point is that CNN is clearly infringing on this innocent person's First Amendment rights, by failing to relinquish theirs?  

[Weganator]

8 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

So, your point is that CNN is clearly infringing on this innocent person's First Amendment rights, by failing to relinquish theirs?  

 A fair point. It reads like a threat to me, but that is a reasonable interpretation.

 

Would his actions have changed if not for CNN contacting him? While its clear he can't repeat the exact offending posts he took down, all future posts he makes needs to be viewed thru the lens of potentially being doxxed if his ideological opponents don't like something he posts.

[Llevron]

1 minute ago, Weganator said:

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.

 

If he makes another meme and the Prez re-posts it, why wouldn't they name him? All they are saying is that this is a non-story but IF he starts again then it wont be. Its not even a threat just CYA

3 minutes ago, Weganator said:

 A fair point. It reads like a threat to me, but that is a reasonable interpretation.

 

Yea I think its just how you wanna read it. I can see it as a threat too but why would they post a threat like that on their website for everyone to see and not just tell him that? 

[RedskinsFan44]

9 minutes ago, Weganator said:

 

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

 

CNN says that they did not make a deal with the Reddit user, so there is no extortion. If there was no conditions set with the Reddit user, no "you do A or we'll publish your name", then it is just CNN being good guys by not outing him while reserving their right to down the road. People read into the CNN statement that there was a deal, but that is not explicitly stated.

Do news organizations have the right to identify people who try to remain anonymous?

[visionary]

 

 

 

Typical targeting of (and promoting harassment and threats to) reporters by Trump family and supporters. 

[Larry]

I hereby publish this scenario, which I freely admit that I have completely made up.  (Just like the folks claiming "blackmail".)  

 

The guy is actually a troll.  Doesn't believe a word of what he's posted.  He's been intentionally playing a caricature of a white racist ***hole, just to troll all of the other people on the Internet.  

 

And CNN's "blackmail" scared him into apologizing, not because he's scared of being revealed for what an ***hole he truly is.  but because he's terrified of what the real Nazis will do to him, if it's revealed that he's been trolling them for years.  

 

He's not scared of CNN.  He's scared of the Nazis and the KKK and the Trumpsters.  

 

 

---

 

I will be happy to discuss reasonable licencing fees for any entity who would like to run with this theory.  

 

 

[SkinsPassion4Life]

Sounds like CNN is Inciting violence if they reveal his name.

[Weganator]

What if a reddit user revealed that they were residing illegally in United States?

Is Fox allowed to reveal this persons identity? Maybe make sure ICE sees it? Do they have an expectation of privacy?

 

edit: I had a reddit ama about a DACA person as an example but had rushed on the example as a title.. cleaned that up.

[Larry]

4 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

CNN says that they did not make a deal with the Reddit user, so there is no extortion.

 

Russia says there was no deal with Trump, so there is no collusion.  

 

Just pointing out that when one of the participants in an alleged deal denies that there's a deal, they aren't the most credible source.  

[RedskinsFan44]

Just now, Larry said:

 

Russia says there was no deal with Trump, so there is no collusion.  

 

Just pointing out that when one of the participants in an alleged deal denies that there's a deal, they aren't the most credible source.  

What I meant was CNN says there was no extortion. Obviously if there was a deal things are different, and obviously CNN could be lying. 

[RedskinsFan44]

9 minutes ago, Weganator said:

 

Is Fox allowed to reveal this persons identity? Maybe make sure ICE sees it? Do they have an expectation of privacy?

Fox is allowed to, and peoples moral judgments about that action would probably vary with their political beliefs with respect to immigration. 

 

Add: I believe he is safe under DACA so the ICE bit is irrelevant, but I could be wrong.

[twa]

40 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

 

 

2)  How you feel about the Dixie Chicks, and similar cases?  

 

I think they should have done it anonymously...preferably wearing masks in a podcast.

A little Charlie Daniels background music would be a nice touch.

[Weganator]

11 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

Fox is allowed to, and peoples moral judgments about that action would probably vary with their political beliefs with respect to immigration. 

 

Add: I believe he is safe under DACA so the ICE bit is irrelevant, but I could be wrong.

Good point to the first part, but what about outlets that are already viewed as reprehensible? Alex Jones or Breitbart could start doing this.

 

To the addition. Yea i already edited that part. I couldve sworn I had read one with truly illegal residence, but rushed on the title for the example and didn't want to dig thru fixing it once i realized my error. Was more about the thought exercise of an outlet revealing identities in a way that aligns with its political views.

[RedskinsFan44]

Well if HanA*****Solo's identity becomes public the first person he can blame is himself for being an enormous troll, he self admittedly sought out notoriety.  The second person he can blame is Trump for making his meme national news.

As I said before I am very surprised he has not been outed by a Reddit user, I seem to remember instances of that happening to people who post awful things that go viral. The internet has opened up a whole can of worms with respect to privacy, best to only post things you wouldn't mind being publicly associated with your identity.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

27 minutes ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

Sounds like CNN is Inciting violence if they reveal his name.

That's absurd.