Posted on 07/04/2017 9:39:49 PM PDT by barmag25
CNN has come under fire for suggesting it will publish the identity of a private citizen if he behaves in a way that displeases the network.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.washingtontimes.com ...
I said that I do not expect CNN or other news organizations to always act in an ethical manner.
However, publishing a name of a person involved in a news event is perfectly legal.
CNN didn’t threaten Clock Boy just because they opposed a video that he made mocking CNN. That’s intended to put a damper on anyone who might make a video or other speech mocking them, if it’s enough of a thorn in their side. If they get away with this, how many people will be hesitant before making speech or other expression mocking CNN? (Unless they have enough celebrity/power to hit back)?
Let them out the boy and his family. They will begin a Sh*tstorm the likes of which they could never predict. That will be legal too, but it won’t help CNN when regular citizens see that while CNN gives the likes of Kathy Griffith a pass, they will bring the full weight of their considerable power against private citizens expressing speech which CNN doesn’t like. I will personally make sure to juxtapose the different ways they treated Griffith and this guy, everywhere I can.
““Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.””
I see noting there about the protection the privacy of a person that decided voice his opinion via an internet meme.
However, publishing a name of a person involved in a news event is perfectly legal.
“Let them out the boy and his family. They will begin a Sh*tstorm the likes of which they could never predict.”
And that will be the right of the people to voice their opinion of CNN’s treatment of the person in question.
Again: See First Amendment
“Let’s see if the fact pattern in this event passes the Gawker test. Call in Hulk Hogan for a sound bite.”
Ping me when CNN releases a sex tape of any person involved in this matter.
I didn’t say they couldn’t legally do what they’re doing, but you can’t say they’re not being hypocritical bullies considering the different ways they treated the free speech of a private citizen and the way they treated the free speech of Kathy Griffith. We have every right to call them out for it, and they are being bullies, because at least Griffith is a celebrity. They didn’t have a problem with her free speech and didn’t threaten her. They have a problem with this guy’s free speech amd threatened him. If they get away with it, that means that CNN gets to control “free” speech. They already have a powerful platform to advance their narrative, and now they’re going to try to stifle the free speech of private citizens? It may be legal, but it’s completely unethical, and the rest of us private citizens have to do what we can to oppose it, or CNN controls public speech.
“It may be legal, but it’s completely unethical,...”
I have stated that their process to reveal the person’s name my not be ethical.
No, this amendment applies to press writings. Not a Constitutional lawyer here, but this instance seems to be clearly coercion, outside the field of journalism. They can probably print his information if they want. But they don’t have license to blackmail and threaten to use that power.
I can’t believe that you’re defending a powerful entity for using that immense power to intimidate a private citizen into shutting up. Since it’s legal, if you’re correct, does CNN just get to continue to threaten and intimidate people (little people of course, famous people have a little more recourse, though the left uses the power of shunning against famous conservatives) who express things which CNN opposes or resents? That is certainly one way to shut all of us up.
They’re not blackmailed into shutting up and recanting.
CNN crossed the line when Kaczynski published his statements regarding CNN reserving the right to reveal the person’s identity in the public domain.
Had they simply revealed this person’s identity without the coercive interaction they may have been able to get away with it, but alas, this is CNN. Their balls are bigger than their brains.
He wouldn’t be the first to post under a fake personae.
Do I take it this guy, and not Trump, will be responsible for violence against CNN?
CNN has no duty to act in a manner that you or I perceive as the greater good.
Then that makes them no better than the political (biased to the left) version of tabloid “journalism”, and they have no standing to claim to speak “truth to power”.
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.