|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
|
|
On July 06 2017 01:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 01:15 Doodsmack wrote:
It's just the way of the world - if the President retweets you, you're getting scrutinized, especially if your post history is inflammatory. CNN did him a favor by not identifying him; the mere fact that they found, in a flesh, a racist troll who got retweeted by the president is news. I like how the entire narrative is how mean CNN is being because they decided to comply with the man’s request to not have his identity published. They are horrible people for interviewing him, taking his apology in good faith and showing good faith back. Terrible, horrible, heartless liberal media destroying the lives of racist reddit users.
That sounds great and I'd totaly be on board with that and agree but their statement that they reserve the right to release his name at any time just doesn't click with it. they could have done admirable journalism work, tracked the guy down to contact him, and then got his apology when confronted that would be a good wraped up little thing. Instead they're holding his real name over him in the event that he continues his posting. They're now influencing him directly with the threat of revealing his secret identity (by secret that they're keeping if no one else) if he doesn't comply with them. I'm not going to say its a hostage level thing but if they'd just eliminate that one statement about reserving the right to reveal who he is then it'd be a completely different thing.
|
|
|
On July 06 2017 01:30 plasmidghost wrote:
Well, here's what CNN has to officially say. It seems like they're not going to go after the guy at all, which I guess is good, but still, they need to retract the line saying that they reserve the right to publish his name
Good.
|
On July 06 2017 01:30 plasmidghost wrote:Well, here's what CNN has to officially say. It seems like they're not going to go after the guy at all, which I guess is good, but still, they need to retract the line saying that they reserve the right to publish his name https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/882633418370142209
None of this would have been a thing if they didn't add the line "CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change."
|
On July 06 2017 01:30 plasmidghost wrote:
Well, here's what CNN has to officially say. It seems like they're not going to go after the guy at all, which I guess is good, but still, they need to retract the line saying that they reserve the right to publish his name
Literally the same thing they said before, isn't it? I don't see any new information in that statement.
|
On July 06 2017 01:30 plasmidghost wrote:Well, here's what CNN has to officially say. It seems like they're not going to go after the guy at all, which I guess is good, but still, they need to retract the line saying that they reserve the right to publish his name. If it is true that they didn't coerce him, then the article was incredibly poorly worded and certainly made it seem like they were trying to coerce him. Whether or not it's true, I have no idea https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/882633418370142209
i mean you could go straight to the source where the writer specifically denies any coercion and goes so far as to say he spoke to the 'victim' of this coercion who agreed there was no such coercion.
but you do you.
|
|
|
But would be false? They have the right to publish his name if they decide it is appropriate to do so.
|
|
|
Well if the guy has been found by CNN and not identified publicly by CNN, and he apologizes but then goes on posting racist stuff, it is kind of newsworthy. The guy got retweeted by the president - it's just the nature of the world that his account is now destroyed.
|
United States43758 Posts
On July 06 2017 01:28 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 01:17 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 01:10 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 01:01 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 00:55 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 00:49 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 00:45 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 00:38 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 00:33 plasmidghost wrote:
But the point everyone's missing is that the CNN reporter committed a federal crime by coercing this person into silence Are they? I'm pretty sure that's the kind of thing CNN would have checked before doing it. Presumably they believe that his name is newsworthy due to him being the creator of a newsworthy piece of media. But hey, maybe you know the law better than CNN's lawyers. We'll see what happens I guess. If your condescending attitude actually read the article, I'm confident you would see that it's coercion, plain and simple, but hey, maybe you won't After posting his apology, "HanA**holeSolo" called CNN's KFile and confirmed his identity. In the interview, "HanA**holeSolo" sounded nervous about his identity being revealed and asked to not be named out of fear for his personal safety and for the public embarrassment it would bring to him and his family.
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. So your response to "maybe CNN's lawyers have looked into this" is that in your opinion the law in this particular case is "plain and simple". I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I'm sure if your interpretation of the plain and simple nature of the law is correct then we'll see it proven correct in the next few months. As for myself, I'll continue to contend that the law isn't very simple and that the opinion of a complete layman probably isn't as valuable as that of a legal team for a multibillion dollar company. It's not just me who has this opinion, you know, and I'm not surprised at all that you just dismiss that Well you were asking me to accept it purely on the basis of you having said it. If you wish to attempt an argument from authority you can't simply make the argument and treat yourself as an authority without first establishing your own credentials. Now that I learn you are asking me to take your claim, not only on the basis that you (credentials unstated) think it but also that others (credentials unstated) agree, I will of course have to reassess my opinion that maybe CNN's legal team knew what they were doing. Good news, I reassessed my opinion. I still think CNN's legal team probably know better than you, and also others. What this comes down to is that CNN's legal team and you, plasmidghost on teamliquid, have differing opinions on the law and that you would like me to trust you over CNN because you believe that in this instance the law is "plain and simple". And you seem to be quite upset that I am not willing to just trust you on this. What is your personal opinion on this? Don't listen to the lawyers who were probably off yesterday. Tell me this: is what CNN doing correct? And you might think I'm upset with you because I disagree with you, when it's fact because you're a giant elitist cunt to a large amount of people My personal opinion is that my opinion about the legality of this isn't worth very much. Apparently we can't all think as much of our own opinions as you. It certainly takes a lot of confidence to demand that everyone else accept your legal opinions purely on the basis of you having said them, unfortunately I just don't think I've successfully built up that kind of authority within the legal community. If you want to be taken seriously then don't attempt an argument from authority without having any authority. If I say "CNN's legal team probably know what they're doing" then you need to go find something like an op-ed from a respected lawyer saying why they don't. You can't just say "but I think they're wrong" and expect me to give you equal weight. If giving more weight to the opinions of lawyers regarding the law is elitism then I am guilty of being an elitist. Certainly I feel like one whenever I have to explain this kind of thing to the likes of you. And once again you've completely failed to take the point I was trying to make. Regarding your attitude, in pretty much every post I've ever seen you make, you immediately dismiss arguments you disagree with with your same smug liberal attitude. Plus, I never said I had any authority, I was just showing that this is exactly what the article said and why I believed it to be coercion. I actually think you're really sad that you don't form any opinions yourself and just go by whatever benefits your trash liberal beliefs
If you had simply said "In my completely uninformed and uneducated opinion, based on my complete absence of experience in the legal profession, I think CNN's legal team have probably made a misstep here because this entire issue is both plain and simple, it's coercion" then I wouldn't have needed to respond. Instead you skipped all of the contextual stuff and insisted that I accept that CNN's legal team were wrong and you were right, purely on the basis of you saying it was "plain and simple".
I have opinions about many things. I'm not LegalLord. You can find a large number of my opinions on this website. That doesn't mean that I have to push opinions on subjects I'm not qualified to have opinions on.
|
On July 06 2017 01:34 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 01:33 brian wrote:On July 06 2017 01:30 plasmidghost wrote:Well, here's what CNN has to officially say. It seems like they're not going to go after the guy at all, which I guess is good, but still, they need to retract the line saying that they reserve the right to publish his name. If it is true that they didn't coerce him, then the article was incredibly poorly worded and certainly made it seem like they were trying to coerce him. Whether or not it's true, I have no idea https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/882633418370142209 i mean you could go straight to the source where the writer specifically denies any coercion and goes so far as to say he spoke to the 'victim' of this coercion who agreed there was no such coercion. but you do you. It's a bad idea to take what one side of the story says at face vale. We're still missing the side of the HanAssholeSolo guy himself, but we'll probably never get that, so I guess I'm just going to move on from this
on one hand we have a credible journalist claiming the alleged victim agrees there's no coercion.
on the other hand we have the alleged victim hiding everything he's ever written and not denying such a claim.
i'm not taking either side as gospel but it's hard for me to imagine a world where coercion happened. i guess the only other explanation that makes any sense is if he got paid off to keep quiet. but then it's not coercion either. but then they also can't USE the line 'we reserve any rights'. so there's that
|
|
|
|
|
On July 06 2017 01:42 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 01:37 brian wrote:On July 06 2017 01:34 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 01:33 brian wrote:On July 06 2017 01:30 plasmidghost wrote:Well, here's what CNN has to officially say. It seems like they're not going to go after the guy at all, which I guess is good, but still, they need to retract the line saying that they reserve the right to publish his name. If it is true that they didn't coerce him, then the article was incredibly poorly worded and certainly made it seem like they were trying to coerce him. Whether or not it's true, I have no idea https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/882633418370142209 i mean you could go straight to the source where the writer specifically denies any coercion and goes so far as to say he spoke to the 'victim' of this coercion who agreed there was no such coercion. but you do you. It's a bad idea to take what one side of the story says at face vale. We're still missing the side of the HanAssholeSolo guy himself, but we'll probably never get that, so I guess I'm just going to move on from this on one hand we have a credible journalist claiming the alleged victim agrees there's no coercion. on the other hand we have the alleged victim hiding everything he's ever written and not denying such a claim. i'm not taking either side as gospel but it's hard for me to imagine a world where coercion happened. i guess the only other explanation that makes any sense is if he got paid off to keep quiet. but then it's not coercion either. The journalist already knows the guy deleted his account and wouldn't be able to respond to anything the journalist cliams, so it wouldn't surprise me to see him lie to protect his ass, it certainly wouldn't be the first time someone in a position of power did just that, just look at this administration for dozens of examples
just because he deleted his reddit account doesn't mean he no longer has a voice. that's not the way any of this works.
now you're proposing that it's at least equally likely if not more likely that a credible journalist publishes easily provable lies on a story he chose to publish? and that makes sense to you? he'd risk his entire career by choice for a lack luster story at best?
well ok.
and yea, i guess the comparison to Don makes sense in that scenario.
|
On July 06 2017 01:42 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 01:37 brian wrote:On July 06 2017 01:34 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 01:33 brian wrote:On July 06 2017 01:30 plasmidghost wrote:Well, here's what CNN has to officially say. It seems like they're not going to go after the guy at all, which I guess is good, but still, they need to retract the line saying that they reserve the right to publish his name. If it is true that they didn't coerce him, then the article was incredibly poorly worded and certainly made it seem like they were trying to coerce him. Whether or not it's true, I have no idea https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/882633418370142209 i mean you could go straight to the source where the writer specifically denies any coercion and goes so far as to say he spoke to the 'victim' of this coercion who agreed there was no such coercion. but you do you. It's a bad idea to take what one side of the story says at face vale. We're still missing the side of the HanAssholeSolo guy himself, but we'll probably never get that, so I guess I'm just going to move on from this on one hand we have a credible journalist claiming the alleged victim agrees there's no coercion. on the other hand we have the alleged victim hiding everything he's ever written and not denying such a claim. i'm not taking either side as gospel but it's hard for me to imagine a world where coercion happened. i guess the only other explanation that makes any sense is if he got paid off to keep quiet. but then it's not coercion either. The journalist already knows the guy deleted his account and wouldn't be able to respond to anything the journalist cliams, so it wouldn't surprise me to see him lie to protect his ass, it certainly wouldn't be the first time someone in a position of power did just that, just look at this administration for dozens of examples
Yes, but in an effort to be transparent, people assumed CNN was blackmailing him. “CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of those facts change” is 100% pure legal speak. It is them saying they have decided to do something, but reserve the right to change their minds if facts change.
|
United States43758 Posts
On July 06 2017 01:40 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 01:35 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 01:28 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 01:17 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 01:10 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 01:01 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 00:55 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 00:49 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 00:45 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 00:38 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Are they? I'm pretty sure that's the kind of thing CNN would have checked before doing it. Presumably they believe that his name is newsworthy due to him being the creator of a newsworthy piece of media.
But hey, maybe you know the law better than CNN's lawyers. We'll see what happens I guess. If your condescending attitude actually read the article, I'm confident you would see that it's coercion, plain and simple, but hey, maybe you won't After posting his apology, "HanA**holeSolo" called CNN's KFile and confirmed his identity. In the interview, "HanA**holeSolo" sounded nervous about his identity being revealed and asked to not be named out of fear for his personal safety and for the public embarrassment it would bring to him and his family.
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. So your response to "maybe CNN's lawyers have looked into this" is that in your opinion the law in this particular case is "plain and simple". I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I'm sure if your interpretation of the plain and simple nature of the law is correct then we'll see it proven correct in the next few months. As for myself, I'll continue to contend that the law isn't very simple and that the opinion of a complete layman probably isn't as valuable as that of a legal team for a multibillion dollar company. It's not just me who has this opinion, you know, and I'm not surprised at all that you just dismiss that Well you were asking me to accept it purely on the basis of you having said it. If you wish to attempt an argument from authority you can't simply make the argument and treat yourself as an authority without first establishing your own credentials. Now that I learn you are asking me to take your claim, not only on the basis that you (credentials unstated) think it but also that others (credentials unstated) agree, I will of course have to reassess my opinion that maybe CNN's legal team knew what they were doing. Good news, I reassessed my opinion. I still think CNN's legal team probably know better than you, and also others. What this comes down to is that CNN's legal team and you, plasmidghost on teamliquid, have differing opinions on the law and that you would like me to trust you over CNN because you believe that in this instance the law is "plain and simple". And you seem to be quite upset that I am not willing to just trust you on this. What is your personal opinion on this? Don't listen to the lawyers who were probably off yesterday. Tell me this: is what CNN doing correct? And you might think I'm upset with you because I disagree with you, when it's fact because you're a giant elitist cunt to a large amount of people My personal opinion is that my opinion about the legality of this isn't worth very much. Apparently we can't all think as much of our own opinions as you. It certainly takes a lot of confidence to demand that everyone else accept your legal opinions purely on the basis of you having said them, unfortunately I just don't think I've successfully built up that kind of authority within the legal community. If you want to be taken seriously then don't attempt an argument from authority without having any authority. If I say "CNN's legal team probably know what they're doing" then you need to go find something like an op-ed from a respected lawyer saying why they don't. You can't just say "but I think they're wrong" and expect me to give you equal weight. If giving more weight to the opinions of lawyers regarding the law is elitism then I am guilty of being an elitist. Certainly I feel like one whenever I have to explain this kind of thing to the likes of you. And once again you've completely failed to take the point I was trying to make. Regarding your attitude, in pretty much every post I've ever seen you make, you immediately dismiss arguments you disagree with with your same smug liberal attitude. Plus, I never said I had any authority, I was just showing that this is exactly what the article said and why I believed it to be coercion. I actually think you're really sad that you don't form any opinions yourself and just go by whatever benefits your trash liberal beliefs If you had simply said "In my completely uninformed and uneducated opinion, based on my complete absence of experience in the legal profession, I think CNN's legal team have probably made a misstep here because this entire issue is both plain and simple, it's coercion" then I wouldn't have needed to respond. Instead you skipped all of the contextual stuff and insisted that I accept that CNN's legal team were wrong and you were right, purely on the basis of you saying it was "plain and simple". I have opinions about many things. I'm not LegalLord. You can find a large number of my opinions on this website. That doesn't mean that I have to push opinions on subjects I'm not qualified to have opinions on. Now than CNN's responded, I guess it doesn't matter anymore what either of us thinks
Yep. CNN still seem to think they're in the clear. It never mattered what either of us thinks (although this seemed to be extremely upsetting to you). We'll see what the people who do matter, lawyers, judges etc think but I'm going to continue my default position that they probably know what they're doing. I could be wrong, that opinion isn't based on legal expertise (which I lack), just on the assumption that they're probably getting some value out of all the money they pay their legal team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
