Re Trump's CNN-gif, Wikileaks declares publishing info to be a crime. (Absolutely not kidding.)

[DetlefK]

http://www.salon.com/2017/07/05/internet-trolls-say-cnn-is-blackmailing-the-guy-who-posted-a-viral-donald-trump-meme/

On Wednesday, CNN tracked down the troll who created the GIF of President Donald Trump tackling an embodiment of “CNN”

...

HanAssholeSolo told CNN he was nervous about his identity being revealed, which led CNN to withhold his information 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,” wrote reporter Andrew Kaczynski.
Not surprisingly, this resulted in a wave of pseudo-outrage on the internet, culminating in the troll-y hashtag: #CNNBlackmail.
It has also led to people claiming that CNN’s act of kindness constituted literal illegal blackmail and that the troll is a 15-year-old boy (he isn’t).

...

Link to tweet

-----------------------------------------------------------

By mere coincidence, in January Wikileaks tried to launch a project to create an online-database that would have made private info on Twitter-users available to the public.



https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/01/06/wikileaks-threatens-publish-twitter-users-personal-info/96254138/

Twitter users blasted the Wikileaks proposal. Wikileaks has come under fire in the past for disclosing personal information such as social security numbers in the documents it publishes.






-----------------------------------------------------------

To recap:

CNN trying to publish name of one guy: Evil.

Wikileaks trying to publish "family/job/financial/housing" info on hundreds of thousands of people: Not Evil.

[Blue_Tires]

1. Sadly the Assange fanbois won't venture anywhere near this thread...

[Cryptoad]

16. Assange and Greenwald

ARe low life wads of Fecal Slime! Fuck em!

[ProfessorGAC]

2. I Don't Get How This Is Blackmail

The lawyers here may show me otherwise, but i don't see what benefit CNN would get by publishing the guy's name. So, i'm not seeing how it's extortion, because there's nothing stopping them for just doing it now.

They are deciding it's not necessary and are willing to protect this tool, but if he crosses the same sort of lines, then they believe it's news, hence they release his name.

They don't benefit by keeping it a secret, and they don't benefit by revealing his identity.

How is it blackmail?

[underpants]

4. As per usual MSM is carrying the RW's water on this

I don't see how it's blackmail either. Hell he used their logo, they could sue him.

[ProfessorGAC]

5. Yeah, Probably So

Unfortunately.

[iluvtennis]

13. Could definitely sue him for copyright infringement. But no, instead, they normalize what Trump did

[unblock]

6. not a lawyer, but i don't understand. blackmailers rarely benefit directly from following through.

blackmailers usually benefit when the victim does what the blackmailer want in order to get the blackmailer to *not* follow through with the threat.

usually both sides lose when the victim doesn't cooperate and the blackmailer follows through with the threat.

maybe following through helps the blackmailer's reputation by making its threats more credible, which could be useful for future blackmails, but that's usually about it.


i think this case fits the high level "form" of blackmail, but there are many, many completely legitimate negotiations that fit the "form" of blackmail. i'll do something you want if you give me what i want, but i'll do something you don't want if you don't.

i think (again, not a lawyer) what matters is, is there a legitimate motive to follow through with the "threat" or does it exist solely to coerce the victim. in this case, i think it's a matter of public interest. moreover, cnn could make the name become public if they decided to sue him for any of a number of reasons (harassment, inciting violence, use of logo, etc.)

additionally, publishing someone's name, especially if that someone is already famous (or infamous, as the case may be) by his own making, is not obviously and necessarily damaging to the victim. so it's hard to see it as a blackmail threat.

[NWCorona]

10. By definition blackmail wouldn't fit as the monetary aspect is absent.

A more correct term would be extortion and that's probably a stretch without digging deeper.

[Lee-Lee]

12. Blackmail doesn't require money

A classic example is an agent discovering information that is damaging to a person with access to classified information and then demanding they reveal it in order to keep that information from being disseminated.

[forgotmylogin]

18. Also, usually a victim of blackmail

isn't guilty of an offense against the blackmailer.

This is a case of a scrappy wannabe taking a swing at Superman, him stopping it and the wannabe saying "Oh please don't reveal my secret identity! I'll be fired from my meager low-paying job and not be able to support my family!" and the superhero goes, okay, but don't let me catch you again or next time your face is on the front page.

[Lee-Lee]

11. They benefit by keeping the secret if his behavior is what they want to happen

"If you don't do x we will make your life unpleasant by making you famous" is certainly blackmail, espiaclly when X is behave in a fashion that is beneficial to the person making the threat.

A classic example is if a person is discovered to be having an affair and the blackmailer threatens to make that public unless they do something the blackmailer likes. With a politician it could be certain votes, with a journalist slanted coverage, with a person with access revealing classified information.

It could even be behaviors that is not beneficial to the blackmailer but just that they want, like a political action that would help others but not the blackmailer.

In this case CNN has demanded an apology and that the person refrain from posting a lot of things including material critical of them. That is certainly beneficial to them.

[ProfessorGAC]

20. You're Not A Lawyer

And I won't stand corrected by a chronic devil's advocate! Your's is not a legal opinion, merely an opinion
Besides, you're completely wrong

[Lee-Lee]

21. No, I'm not wrong. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong

It's almost a classic case of blackmail.

"If you don't do X, Y, Z actions that we want we will reveal information we know that will make your life difficult"

That's classic blackmail.

Here is a similar situation that was real life what I was aware of not long ago:

"We see that you are married and in a high position in your very conservative church, yet here are ads you placed on the internet looking for sex with other men and here are photos of a rendezvous you had. If you don't provide us with trade secrets from your company and also steer contracts you are in charge of to the companies we make sure all this gets not only shown to your wife and parents but emailed to the entire distri list of your church and employer all at once"

It's the same thing. CNN set up a situation where a person had to perform certain actions in return for them not making public information they had that would have been damaging or uncomfortable to the person.

[MagickMuffin]

3. Fuck Julian ASSange

He doesn't get to call the shots. He is one sick and scummy dude!

[snort]

7. Blackmail is done in secret.

[Lee-Lee]

8. Not necessarily

This could, depending on the states statutes in play, be considered.

"If you don't do X we will take actions that make your life unpleasant" can 100% be considered blackmail.

[NCTraveler]

9. Assange is all in for his fellow rapist. Nt

[George II]

14. Julian Assange?

Isn't this the guy who has been holed up in the Equadorian Embassy in London for years to evade prosecution for committing a crime?



The hits keep on coming.

[amrita73]

15. Julian Assange, the sociopath

[struggle4progress]

17. Julian doesn't get around much, does he?

[gratuitous]

19. So Wikileaks is all over the "artist's" compatriots who are doxxing CNN personnel, right?

Oooh listen: Crickets!