Wikileaks: CNN extorts/blackmails amateur satirist who made video tweeted by Trump.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Jonjonj

If you value freedom of expression how the hell can you then condone the implicit or explicit threat to that expression by CNN?

A threat is not a narrative. I see no narrative being created here. I see CNN doing something stupid against one individual and even if their intent was to create a narrative about "playing with the bull", it's a non-starter.

It never took hold.

Yes, they tried, but it never took hold because people fought back and called them out, even in the face of some who would try to downplay what CNN did. We even know why some have tried to downplay it - they rely heavily on CNNs fake news to push propaganda against the President and the last thing they want is for their material to be even more discredited than it already is.

originally posted by: DanteGaland
ITT:

*sigh*

Obviously this is true on both EXTREME sides of this this issue.

with one believing its an issue of free speech and CNN is going to go after all the meme authors

and the other believing its a fascist nazi plot to rule the country.

but lets not forget regardless of whether it's fully understood or not, whether you agree or not, every individual has a right to their opinion or point of view regardless of how ridiculous it may seem to the other side. Individual importance or validity isn't based on being able to intellectualize a subject.

For example there are loads of bills that get passed into law without many of our congressmen, women or senators knowing fully what the bill is about.

Like the Homeland Security bill that had a rider attached allowing for the rise of pay sites for fantasy sports or the Obamacare bill that both sides admitted they didn't fully understand.

Yes in a utopian society everybody would fully understand and be able to discuss rationally and respect each others opinion. But we got a long way to go to get there, in the mean time everybody has got to find a way to have civil discourse.

originally posted by: The GUT
Zucker is doubling-down on the same strategy that got CNN where they're at today. What an idiot.

No doubt he's on his way out. None.

mobile.nytimes.com...link

Contrast this from a professional, multi billion dollar company (from your article):

One challenge Mr. Zucker has thought about: safety. The level of threats against CNN employees, he said, has spiked this year. Mr. Trump, he said, “has caused us to have to take steps that you wouldn’t think would be necessary because of the actions of the president of the United States.”

With this, from a CNN employee:

'People do not have the right to stay anonymous'

And I think I can just rest the people's case because MY GOD!!!

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.
Vulgarity is NOT allowed.
Community Announcement re: Decorum


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

I think the only thing CNN can do is force someone to not use their logo in meme art. The rest is just an opinion from someone.

a reply to: Jonjonj

So CNN makes it official. Their anonymous sources are only anonymous because CNN feels like letting them be ... for now. As soon as it's no longer in CNN's best interests to keep those sources anonymous, CNN will out them because they really don't have any right to anonymity?

So basically, if I am looking for the source of the Trump/Russia leaks, I want to start jailing CNN reporters who won't reveal their sources. They don't believe those sources have privacy rights.

a reply to: ketsuko

Are you ADVOCATING jailing CNN journalists

originally posted by: DanteGaland
a reply to: ketsuko

Are you ADVOCATING jailing CNN journalists

Reporters have been jailed for not revealing their sources before.

In this case, the sources we want to find are guilty of violating US law, including whistleblower laws. Journalists have been known to go to the mat for their sources, but according to that CNN reporter, their sources have no right to expect any privacy or anonymity. If the reporters really believe that, then they should fold like wet toilet paper.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Jonjonj

So CNN makes it official. Their anonymous sources are only anonymous because CNN feels like letting them be ... for now. As soon as it's no longer in CNN's best interests to keep those sources anonymous, CNN will out them because they really don't have any right to anonymity?

So basically, if I am looking for the source of the Trump/Russia leaks, I want to start jailing CNN reporters who won't reveal their sources. They don't believe those sources have privacy rights.

They honestly don't understand the sh!tshow they have just created for the media in general and themselves in particular, or do they?

I believe a precedent is being set here, which brings to the fore the questions raised by previous threads.

Who the hell is CNN actually working for?

a reply to: Jonjonj

Those are my thoughts on this because this action really raises a lot of ethical concerns on a lot of levels and opens doors I think a lot of people would rather stay closed.

originally posted by: DanteGaland
a reply to: ketsuko

Are you ADVOCATING jailing CNN journalists

I am sorry to say this but this is an idiotic and obtuse question.

The point under discussion right now is anonymity, and how CNN, in one bold move, just set the precedent for removing it for all citizens, regardless of position.

Enjoy your brave new world.

originally posted by: roadgravel
I think the only thing CNN can do is force someone to not use their logo in meme art. The rest is just an opinion from someone.

They can't even necessarily do that, as the logo could legitimately be used in parody/satire (the legal difference and the importance of that difference are a thread in its own right) even if the owner objects. I say "could" because it can get a bit complicated in edge cases.

originally posted by: DanteGaland
a reply to: ketsuko

Are you ADVOCATING jailing CNN journalists

Do you even understand the context of the situation? CNN's Kirsten Powers is on the record stating that people do not have the right to anonymity. She's referring to the meme maker in this case but, it begs the question ... If people do not have the right to anonymity, why do news agencies claim so many anonymous sources? It's pure hypocrisy.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: roadgravel
I think the only thing CNN can do is force someone to not use their logo in meme art. The rest is just an opinion from someone.

They can't even necessarily do that, as the logo could legitimately be used in parody/satire (the legal difference and the importance of that difference are a thread in its own right) even if the owner objects. I say "could" because it can get a bit complicated in edge cases.

Sure they might not be able but it's probably the only thing they can get.

If people "don't have a right to stay anonymous", then why is everyone upset about the Trump administration gathering voting data?

a reply to: DBCowboy

lulz.

Is that a real question? And what about anonymous sourcces in journalism btw?

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: DanteGaland
a reply to: ketsuko

Are you ADVOCATING jailing CNN journalists

Do you even understand the context of the situation? CNN's Kirsten Powers is on the record stating that people do not have the right to anonymity. She's referring to the meme maker in this case but, it begs the question ... If people do not have the right to anonymity, why do news agencies claim so many anonymous sources? It's pure hypocrisy.

People don't have the right to privacy. No where in the Constitution is such a thing stated, the same argument was successfully used by the government to justify quite a bit of monitoring. Furthermore, CNN isn't the government, they're a private entity and as such they can choose whatever rules they want. Rights only exist between the citizens and the government, not between the citizens and a corporation... that's where contracts come into play. If CNN wants to create a contract with a private entity to keep their identity secret in exchange for something, they're free to do so. In the case of anonymous sources, in exchange for the info they keep the source secret. This matters in court cases due to First Amendment protections which give the press broad leeway in what they publish.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
If people "don't have a right to stay anonymous", then why is everyone upset about the Trump administration gathering voting data?

Because they want something to complain about. The voting data doesn't change anonymity at all anyways. No matter what data they collect, your name still isn't linked to your vote.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Reporters have been jailed for not revealing their sources before.

In this case, the sources we want to find are guilty of violating US law, including whistleblower laws. Journalists have been known to go to the mat for their sources, but according to that CNN reporter, their sources have no right to expect any privacy or anonymity. If the reporters really believe that, then they should fold like wet toilet paper.

You're conflating issues. Going to jail is an issue between the journalist and the state which brings in the Constitution, notably the 1st and 4th Amendments but I'm sure others could apply as well.

This case is between a private individual and a corporation, therefore rights do not apply since the government isn't involved.

originally posted by: ketsuko
So CNN makes it official. Their anonymous sources are only anonymous because CNN feels like letting them be ... for now. As soon as it's no longer in CNN's best interests to keep those sources anonymous, CNN will out them because they really don't have any right to anonymity?

It depends on what sort of privacy contract was written up and agreed to by both parties.

a reply to: Jonjonj

To say nothing of how CNN got the information on the identity of the gif maker; assuming we have the right person in the first place because I don't that has ever been satisfactorily answered.

As for whom CNN is actually working?

Well, we could tell you but then we'd have to kill you...