Suzanne Nossel
Posted on 08/09/2019 7:17:56 PM PDT by MarvinStinson
In the wake of the El Paso shootings, Representative Joaquin Castro of Texas created a stir with a tweet listing the names and employers of 44 residents of the San Antonio area who contributed up to the legal limit to the Trump campaign.
Twitter exploded, accusing Mr. Castro of “doxxing” donors.
But sharing data as basic as a name and affiliation, unaccompanied by any suggestion, much less threat, of action against those individuals is not harassment. And the future of open political discourse will require us to address the serious scourge of online harassment without misusing the charge in an effort to suppress protected speech.
While harassment is illegal, public shaming is not. Democracy depends upon the ability of politicians, journalists and citizens to draw attention to what they consider misdeeds.
Mr. Castro’s tweet did not encourage any specific action.
True doxxing intended to strike fear that boundaries safeguarding our personal lives have been breached. Doxxing is the online equivalent of having an intruder climb up the fire escape and appear in the window.
While it is possible that some supporters could have harassed those named, Mr. Castro cannot be held legally responsible for others’ harassing conduct that he did not urge.
Involvement in politics — even as a donor — entails a certain willingness to engage in the rough-and-tumble of discourse with those who may make you feel uncomfortable for the views you hold. Being called out publicly, as opposed to menaced personally, is fair game.
Elected officials hold a special duty to exercise the power of their pulpit responsibly. It’s fair to question whether Mr. Castro’s tweet was prudent or decorous. But to refer to it as doxxing or online harassment is inaccurate, and sows confusion over what online abuse actually looks like.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
NY Times is just another democrat. Support and defend anything that democrats say or do.
Suzanne Nossel
Of course if one were to post the names and address of all doctors still performing abortions, that would raise a firestorm. Doxxing would be the nicest thing that would say about it.
Joaquin and his twit are the textbook example of the good little commie muchachos.
It was not doxing, it was a call to violence to cause fear to a political opponent.
It was terrorism.
How ironic that less than a week ago the Democrats were all abuzz about Trump inciting violence. One would think the would have enough attention span to lay low for a bit.
23 NOVEMBER 2011 by EŠTINA FRANÇAIS
https://www.voltairenet.org/article171951.html
Suzanne Nossel, former assistant to Richard Holbrooke in his capacity as UN Ambassador and currently Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Assistant for International Organization Affairs, has been selected as the new Executive Director of Amnesty International USA. In the discharge of her duties at the State Department, she diligently exploited human rights to benefit imperial ambitions.
Ms. Nossel had previously worked for Human Rights Watch, as well as for Bertelsmann Media Worldwide and the Wall Street Journal as Vice President of Strategy and Operations.
The AI-USA Board of Directors deemed that Suzanne Nossel’s commitment to the Clinton and Obama administrations was sufficient proof of her competence and decided not to hold a grudge against her for the crimes committed in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, etc.
Ms. Nossel has launched several campaigns against Iran, Libya and Syria. In recent months she made a name for herself by misinforming the Human Rights Council in Geneva with a view to getting the resolution authorizing the war on Libya adopted by the Security Council. Ms. Nossel’s allegations have since been debunked.
I’m strongly against doxxing and this charade of drawing the line for what constitutes doxxing just past what someone does because they’re on your side politically is going to backfire big time.
While there are zealots and activists on both sides of the political spectrum, the vast majority of people regardless of political stripe want to be left alone and not be drawn into a political civil war. Watching private citizens who merely participate in politics through a political contribution get drawn into a battle and be made a target is a very bad tactic pursued only by stupid bullies who can’t win in the battle of ideas. They may strengthen their activist core’s resolve, but they won’t ever gain supporters this way and they will lose.
What dems refuse to admit they forced donor lists to become public in California in 2008....Same sex marriage ban...Prop 8..they forced list to be public to destroy pop y the enemies of same sex
Someone should DOXX Suzanne and see if she considers it as shaming or harassment.
Trump’s Attacks on the Press Are Illegal. We’re Suing.
By SUZANNE NOSSEL October 16, 2018
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/16/trumps-attacks-on-the-press-are-illegal-were-suing-221312
Suzanne Nossel is CEO of PEN America.
President Donald J. Trump’s frequent threats and hostile acts directed toward journalists and the media are not only offensive and unbecoming of a democratic leader; they are also illegal. In the Trump era, nasty rhetoric, insults and even threats of violence have become an occupational hazard for political reporters and commentators. To be sure, a good portion of President Trump’s verbal attacks on journalists and news organizations might be considered fair game in this bare-knuckled political moment. The president has free-speech rights just like the rest of us, and deeming the news media “the enemy of the American people” and dismissing accurate reports as “fake news” are permissible under the First Amendment.
But the First Amendment does not protect all speech. Although the president can launch verbal tirades against the press, he cannot use the powers of his office to suppress or punish speech he doesn’t like. When President Trump proposes government retribution against news outlets and reporters, his statements cross the line. Worse still, in several cases it appears that the bureaucracy he controls has acted on his demands, making other threats he issues to use his governmental powers more credible. Using the force of the presidency to punish or suppress legally protected speech strikes at the heart of the First Amendment, contravening the Constitution. Presidents are free to mock, needle, evade and even demean the press, but not to use the power of government to stifle it.
That is why this week PEN America, an organization of writers that defends free expression, together with the nonprofit organization Protect Democracy and the Yale Law School Media Freedom and Information Clinic, is filing suit in federal court seeking an order directing the president not to use the force of his office to exact reprisals against the press.
While the president’s actions are unprecedented, the law here is established. A 2015 judicial opinion by the Seventh Circuit’s (now-retired) Judge Richard Posner makes clear that “a public official who tries to shut down an avenue of expression of ideas and opinions through actual or threatened imposition of government power or sanction is violating the First Amendment.” Similarly, a 2003 Second Circuit opinion found that the First Amendment was violated when an official’s statements “can reasonably be interpreted as intimating that some form of punishment or adverse regulatory action will follow the failure to accede to the official’s request.’”
President Trump has engaged repeatedly in precisely the kind of behavior those courts have found unlawful.
After repeatedly attacking CNN’s news coverage as “fake,” “garbage” and “terrible” and personally pledging to block a proposed merger of its parent company, Time Warner, with AT&T, the Trump administration opposed the deal, a vertical merger that would not normally attract antitrust scrutiny. The government denied that retaliation was at work and the court did not assess that claim. But the judge rejected the government’s challenge and approved the merger with no conditions imposed, citing the government’s failure to adduce “economic evidence of any kind” and reliance on “bare conjecture” as the basis for its case.
Trump has also repeatedly attacked the Washington Post and threatened to target its owner Jeff Bezos’s biggest holding, Amazon. This spring the president followed through on his threats, ordering the Postal Service to review rates for the online shopping behemoth. Coming in the wake of the president’s eruptions directed at the Post, that order too appears to be punitive.
In other cases, too, the president seems to be retaliating against individuals for their coverage. Trump threatened to withdraw the press credentials of reporters who criticized him; in August CNN’s Kaitlan Collins was barred from a Rose Garden press conference for asking questions the White House judged impertinent.
Others in the media cannot help but take notice that an angry president may strike back. When we have consulted our members, writers and journalists working across the U.S., they have told us they take into account in their writing that criticism of the administration might put them at risk. Many media outlets and correspondents are pressing forward fearlessly, making this a heyday for certain types of hard-hitting coverage. But individual writers, especially without the protection of a big media company, may think twice before publishing pieces that could land them in the White House’s crosshairs. Moreover, while intrepid journalists may be willing to work under threat from the highest levels of their government, here in the United States they should never have to.
Curtailing the president’s violations of the First Amendment is unlikely to halt some of its most dangerous ripple effects. The last few months have brought violent attacks on journalists, some clearly inspired by the president’s invective. In August a man was arrested for threatening to murder Boston Globe journalists parroted the president’s “enemy of the people” language. White House radio reporter April Ryan, the New York Times’ Bret Stephens, CNN’s Andrew Kaczynzki and others have received death threats.
President Trump’s tirades against the press are by now routine, and may seem to fit right in with our no-holds-barred culture of polarized punditry and bluster. But the president of the United States isn’t just another talking head. It is vital that courts weigh in to underscore that no matter what a given president may think and say, a free press is an essential pillar of our democracy. A court could affirm that by reminding President Trump that his freedom of speech does not extend to threatening to use the powers of his office against the press.
Our news media is right to keep their heads down, ignore the insults and remain focused on journalism. But that shouldn’t mean the president’s First Amendment violations go unchallenged. It is up to those of us who depend upon a free press to rise in defense of it.
Ya, right, and Obama didn't go after Dinesh D'Souza
I myself used this power to smack down an IRS over-reach into a legitimate financial transaction.
If Jokey Castrati is ATTACKING his constituents, he's not advocating for them.
Screw this NYT Front Hole. She's either too stupid for words when it comes to our representative Republic, or she's a lying sack of Mitt.
Rep. Joaquin Castro Doxes Trump Supporters In His District Following Mass Shooting; Tlaib Backs Him
Publish her name and address somewhere like “8chan” and just see what her reaction is!
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough also supported Castro.
“Any business that donates to Trump is complicit and endorses the white supremacy he espoused in Charlottesville, with his ‘send her back’ chants, and by laughing at shouts that Hispanic immigrants should be shot. Donors’ names are on FEC reports. They are newsworthy.”
Castro’s tweet doxing citizens remains up on Twitter.
While harassment is illegal, public shaming is not. Democracy depends upon the ability of politicians, journalists and citizens to draw attention to what they consider misdeeds...
I did’t know donating to the politician you like was a misdeed.
AND WHY ARE THEY ALWAYS SO UGLY?!?!?!? :)
Looks like a ugly man with a bad wig.
Haven’t see a woman with hair parted on the side since...hmmm...
Word games - the aggregation and publication of the names and addresses of Trump donors for the purpose of causing them at least discomfort and inconvenience, whether the names are readily available or must be collected de novo, certainly supports the intention of doxxing - it’s unethical, inappropriate for a public official and probably worthy of a class-action lawsuit - it we have to invent a new term for it, we can, but until that time doxxing will do just fine......
It was a call to “go get ‘em” and personally destroy all Trump donors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.