So if the Supreme Court says that he is within his First Amendment rights should CNN to decide to threaten him over it? I would think using coercion and threats to deny someone their constitutional rights would result in some serious legal trouble for CNN..?
No, fortunately, incitement is a very narrow exception to the First Amendment. The violence advocated must be "intended, likely and imminent" according to the Brandenburg test. IIRC, that case involved someone making a general threat of "revenge" against the government while at a Klan rally where people were actually armed, and the SCOTUS said that prosecuting him violates the First Amendment.
No chance of a legal remedy here. Which is entirely the point. No one wants government censorship. But public shaming has always been an option for countering offensive speech. Some of us have just decided to treat internet speech as an exception where people are supposed to be shame proof, such that there are literally never any consequences to hateful and offensive speech.
No need to be a fan. You can just read the tweets they quoted. They are quoted elsewhere. If you haven't read them, you should. This isn't even ordinary bigotry. It really doesn't get much worse than this.
So if the Supreme Court says that he is within his First Amendment rights should CNN to decide to threaten him over it? I would think using coercion and threats to deny someone their constitutional rights would result in some serious legal trouble for CNN..?
Right, I think anyone pointing out that this guy is a piece of shit should also point out that CNN is a horribly shitty media company that has no issue hiring shills and liars and putting them on the air.
The best part is that you'll no doubt expect others to feel empathy for you sometime in your life
Speech anonymity is not guaranteed by the Constitution. We all have a right to privacy, however- it just doesn't necessarily extend to what we willingly put into the public view.
Anonymity protects lots of different kinds of commentary and discourse on the internet. I'm surprised you're so cavalier about it. My understanding is that this was posted by a sub reddit for like-minded shitheads and that this would not have been seen by anyone if Trump hadn't retweeted it.
You called this a tactic for "countering offensive speech" but my understanding is that other trolls have already responded to CNN with more threats, so how exactly did this do any good?
I already said that based on what I've seen, he's a complete piece of shit, why do I need to read his presumably hateful, vile, racist, posts? The ADL is a shitty organization and I'm not going to their website.
I'm not cavalier about it. I'll admit to being conflicted about it. We've had free speech, meaning a constitutional guaranty against government censorship, since the beginning. I've never been conflicted about that. I support it 100%.
Yet in the past, people have exercised a sense of restraint because they face public censure. The internet has unfortunately become an excuse for people to pursue all manner of vile and sociopathic behavior, while cowardly hiding behind anonymity. Still, I see the importance of maintaining it. I just don't think CNN threatening to out this guy on this one occasion, without actually doing it, is a threat to internet anonymity on the whole.
The present climate is one in which the free press is under attack. These are not normal circumstances.
Good. People have been trying to rationalize this video as being a metaphor for Trump's struggle against the media rather than as advocacy for violence. If direct threats of violence are being made, then these people are now being exposed for who and what they truly are.
You're just trying to stick your head in the sand because you have issues with CNN and you don't want to see who this guy really is.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/03/trump-tweet-reddit-user-history-hanassholesolo
Example:
Good one, taking this guy side over the big, bad CNN. You're on the wrong side of this one.
In my entire life, I have not seen such pearl clutching from liberals over one man. Keep it up, I find it quite enjoyable.
Anonymity protects lots of different kinds of commentary and discourse on the internet. I'm surprised you're so cavalier about it. My understanding is that this was posted by a sub reddit for like-minded shitheads and that this would not have been seen by anyone if Trump hadn't retweeted it.
You called this a tactic for "countering offensive speech" but my understanding is that other trolls have already responded to CNN with more threats, so how exactly did this do any good?
I already said that based on what I've seen, he's a complete piece of shit, why do I need to read his presumably hateful, vile, racist, posts? The ADL is a shitty organization and I'm not going to their website.
In my entire life, I have not seen such pearl clutching from liberals over one man. Keep it up, I find it quite enjoyable.
In my entire life, I have not seen such pearl clutching from liberals over one man. Keep it up, I find it quite enjoyable.
I may not agree with what CNN did/is doing here, but if I was on the right, I'd be disowning this clown as fast as I could. But who knows, maybe the broader right is more okay with his message than I realized...
No chance of a legal remedy here. Which is entirely the point. No one wants government censorship. But public shaming has always been an option for countering offensive speech. Some of us have just decided to treat internet speech as an exception where people are supposed to be shame proof, such that there are literally never any consequences to hateful and offensive speech.
Dude was all for doxxing and even attacking before this happened to him
https://www.reddit.com/r/AgainstHat...anassholesolo_wished_for_people_to_be_doxxed/
Maybe it's worth asking yourself why you support it 100%. Is it because there's something unique about a government vs. another type of organization? Or is it because there's a massive power imbalance between an individual expressing a (possibly awful) view, and the full force of the state? Don't you think a similar power imbalance can exist between some dude who is posting gross shit on Reddit and a $15 billion media company with the resources to discover the dude's identity and focus public attention on him.
I mean, if you don't think that CNN discovering this guy's identity, and threatening to dox him to extract concession from him is a threat to internet anonymity, I guess we just disagree.
To the extent that the free press is "under attack", it is from the government and powerful interests, not internet shitheads on reddit.
I don't think there's much question who these people are. My question is what was accomplished by CNN.
I read the guardian article and he looks like a standard pepe to me. I don't think I'm defending this guys views or what he posts by saying that I don't agree with doxxing (or threatening to dox) him.
Again, they didn't fucking doxx anyone and they didn't fucking threaten to doxx anyone either.
I've posted links earlier to the twitter feed where this was covered and BOTH CNN and HanassholeSolo agreed that it was not a threat and he said that he never felt threatened.
But keep going repeating how they doxxed him and threatened to doxx him because reality matter not when emotion is running high.
Again, they didn't fucking doxx anyone and they didn't fucking threaten to doxx anyone either.
I've posted links earlier to the twitter feed where this was covered and BOTH CNN and HanassholeSolo agreed that it was not a threat and he said that he never felt threatened.
But keep going repeating how they doxxed him and threatened to doxx him because reality matter not when emotion is running high.
The trouble with public shaming as a deterrent is that some people are more vulnerable to such shaming than are others. And in general (not in this case but as a general rule) it is far more effective as a deterrent against people lacking social or economic power and in vulnerable positions than it is against the socially-secure. So I am not convinced it's a particularly good method. The reality is that well-ensconced folk actually _are_ shame proof, even without anonymity. The English-speaking world is full of professional trolls who make a very good living out of saying outrageous things.
Post-truth, baby!
Is this some sort of joke or something? They didn't threaten? What the fuck do you call it when they stated they will release his information if he retracts the apology?
You can't hate this meme so much that you're willing to agree to this? Ahh what am I kidding, you do and it's sad.
They hired private investigators for this shit because they are a fucking joke. They threatened him and deserve all the hate that comes upon them.
And for you? I expect nothing less than your bullshit. If this was foxnews you would be having an orgasm in reaction to it.