Amos Yee is what happens when you argue about laws without doing the legal reseach.

So I've broken down Amos Yee's advocacy of child molestation, but there was another point I touched on where he clearly had no grasp of the legal concept of consent and the foundation that the concept is based upon.

He goes on and one about "consent", well here's the thing with consent. Consent can be invalid. If the consent is given under duress, then the consent can be invalid. If the consent is not "informed" then it can be invalid. If the person giving the consent does not have capacity to consent, then the consent is invalid. You threaten someone to obtain consent? Invalid. You withhold critical, need to know information from someone to obtain their consent? Invalid. You get someone drunk and have them sign a contract? Invalid.You exert an undue influence on another to obtain consent? Invalid.

Which brings us to the main point that goes completely over Amos's head. The main thing that his argument completely fails to address. Capacity. He goes on to argue that children are able to give consent. He gives examples and says if a child gives consent to a sexual act, then it is ok. Well there are several reasons why he is wrong.

• Children lack capacity. Children lack the capacity to give consent to sexual activity. So even if consent was obtained from the child, the consent is invalid anyway. This is the biggest hole in his argument that he either ignored, or is simply ignorant of the concept. If it is indeed a case of ignorance, then this is one of the most glaring examples of what happens when a layperson tries to make an argument related to law. The miss key legal concepts like this and their argument completely disintegrates.  
• The pedophile may have exerted undue influence on the child to obtain consent. Ok let say that children do have capacity to give consent. The next sword that Amos's argument falls upon is the concept of undue influence. You know how we tell kids not to take candy from strangers? Well we tell them that because it isn't hard to influence a child to do something. So if a peodophile induces a child to consent to sexual acts with promises of candy or pizza, even without and acts of or threats of violence, that would be an undue influence exerted on the child and therefore the consent would be invalid. 
• Related to the above, is the lack of informed consent. Most if not all children do not understand what sexual activity is. The result of that is that because of that lack of understanding, a child cannot give informed consent, and therefore the consent would be invalid. 
• Then of course there's duress. There are multiple instances seen on The Steve Wilkos Show involving child predators, where the predator hasn't made an overt acts of violence (other than the actual act of molestation) but has obtained "consent" from the child in the form of verbal threats. Consent in this case? Yup, invalid.

Amos insists that his advocacy is non-violent. That is irrelevant and a non-factor because violence isn't the crux of the issue here, in-fact, consent isn't even the real issue here. The actual issue here is the ability to consent. 

Again Amos might just be trolling, but the fact of the matter is, he might not mean it, but someone out there might his argument and take it seriously. So even if this was entirely a massive troll by a 19 year old kid with a big mouth, writing this isn't an entire waste of time. He presents himself has having built a logical argument to advocate his points, while the structure of his argument is solid where he fails and fails hard is his complete lack of understanding of the legal terms and concepts. Knowing these terms and concepts is key because he's essentially arguing a change in the laws. He presents this advocacy with a complete lack of understanding of why the current laws are the way they are.

You might ask me, does it matter that Amos doesn't understand these concepts? Yes it does. It would be analogous to going into the design room of Boeing or Northrop-Grumman and telling the engineers that a particular modification should be made to a design, while having no knowledge of aeronautical engineering.


Now to start wrapping things up.

"America, land of the free?! Suck my oblong dick!"

Look sugar cookie, no one made you come here, and no one is making you stay here. This isn't some communist country, you're free to leave when ever you want if you don't like it here. There might be some other country in Europe that would be happy to host a child molestation advocate such as yourself. Don't expect to come to a country exposing views that run contrary to the prevailing social values and not expect backlash. Apparently you learned nothing from your troubles in your home country.

The reason you got support for your anti-government views was because you weren't harming anyone with your views, and yet the government cracked down on you anyway. The reason people don't have your back on decriminalizing child molestation because what you advocate harms children. Sure you provide a few isolated anecdotes and examples from non-western cultures, but you hardly prove that your examples are the norm.

The reason why I won't support Amos Yee on this is because the stance he advocates will cause harm to people. Even if he's just trolling, trolling is a fun and good when it stays on the internet, but what he's arguing for has real world implications.

Amos Pang Sang Yee is a Sick Bastard (A response to "Why Pedophilia is Alright")

Holy crap where do I even start with this one...

To get to the point, basically, Amos Yee thinks it's ok to have sex with kids.That's not hyperbole, that's not just me flinging poo like a monkey, he literally believes this.

Amos builds his... "argument"... on the concept of "consent", but the problem is he never really defines or quantifies "consent". He argues that it isn't rape if the child "consents" to the sexual act. Because he wants the laws to change, and given my background we will use the legal definition of consent.

1) n. a voluntary agreement to another's proposition. 2) v. to voluntarily agree to an act or proposal of another, which may range from contracts to sexual relations. 

Now in law, consent is based upon the concept of capacity. One who lacks capacity (like the mentally ill or disabled) is unable to give consent. The insane or mentally disabled cannot give consent, as they lack the capacity to understand the situation. Minors also do not have capacity. Capacity is essentially the foundation of consent. But before we move on, here is the legal definition of capacity.

Capacity is subject to different meanings, but in the legal sense,it refers to the ability to make a rational decision based upon all relevant facts and considerations. 

In other words, you can only give consent if you know what you are doing. If you do not know what you are doing (lack capacity) then under the law you have not given consent. And there is a reason why children lack capacity. So swinging back around to Amos's main point, children lack capacity therefore cannot give consent, therefore the sexual act with them is rape/sexual assault.

Children, depending on age, do not understand what they are doing, that is why they do not have capacity. Yes 18 is arbitrary, why not 17? Why not 16? From a practical standpoint the bar has to be set somewhere for age of majority. More on that later. The concept of "undue influence" comes into play here. In regular-speak, undue influence is basically manipulation, but, here's the legal explanation.

The use of undue influence by one party over another puts the free will of one of the parties entering the contract into question, and therefore leads to the contract being unenforceable and voidable by the victim party. To prove undue influence, a party must show that one party to the contract is a person with weaknesses which make him likely to be affected by such persuasion, and that the party exercising the persuasion is someone in a special relationship with the victim that makes the victim especially susceptible to such persuasion. 

In other words, children lack the cognitive development and the real world experience, essentially making them a person with weaknesses which makes them likely to be affected by "such persuasion". So with these points we just shot down the claim that Amos makes that children can give consent. Where things get really nasty is that Amos presents the premise that children can benefit from a sexual relation with adults. That in and of itself runs contrary to what contemporary medicine has to say about it.

Amos's arguments pretty much fall on their faces right there. He's delving into the realm of law, without learning the legal definitions (and reasoning behind) of the terms he's using and as a result his arguments fail. However the creeperfest doesn't just stop here, it continues on. Earlier I touched on the age of 18 being somewhat arbitrary. But Amos isn't talking about teenagers, he's not talking about a 16 or a 17 year old. He's taking about sexual activities involving 10 year olds and younger. Where things get really monstrous is when Amos argues that it should be ok to create and to possess child pornography.

And that's just the mental/emotional aspect of it. There is the whole physical aspect, I feel weird citing The Steve Wilkos Show here, but he does a lot of episodes going after child molesters. More often than not, the party making the accusation has a child that has suffered injury from the abuse. Injuries like tearing and lacerations in the affected body parts. 

So like I mentioned earlier, Amos advocates for the decriminalization of creations and possession of child porn. He isn't talking about teenagers, who don't know any better, sexting each other. He's talking about full blown child pornography. Again he builds his advocacy of this on his flawed understanding of consent. If children cannot give consent, then they cannot consent to making a pornographic video. Amos may try to argue that peripheral crimes like kidnapping and human trafficking might be reduced if creation and possession of child porn was decriminalized, comparing it to drugs, but that's an apples and oranges comparison. Even without the laws in place, sexual activity with children is seen as completely reprehensible. Given that, professional studios like Vivid or Hustler aren't going to want to have anything to do with it, leaving creation to be done in shady "garage" studios. That's not even getting into the inevitable undue influence from unscrupulous sickos looking to make a buck off another sicko.

Then there's the whole thing about uploading it to the internet. Ever heard the phrase "the internet is forever"? Going back to what we talked about earlier, about children lacking capacity,is a child really going to understand the implications of uploading suck a video (assuming someone even bother to tell them). It's not uncommon for something sexual that an adult did getting on the internet and coming back to haunt them later. With bullies using the internet as yet another tool for them, this could come back ten fold on a child later on. Especially in a culture like those in East Asia where shame and embarrassment are a major thing.


Now to be fair, maybe this is all just Amos's understanding of the situation based upon his non-existent grasp of the legal definition of consent. Namely that he doesn't understand the concept of capacity that consent is based upon, and therefore doesn't understand that children can't give consent due to lack of capacity. Or if this is a case where Amos didn't reach a conclusion but rather already had a conclusion that he's trying to justify. The latter would mean that Amos believes that pedophiles should be allowed to act upon their urges.

Alternately he might be just trolling/trying to be an "edgelord" and doing this just to piss people off, but the thing is, some sicko out there might see his materials, buy his argument, and think "hey this guy is right, there really is nothing wrong with wanting to sleep with kids!" It's like Chuck McGill's comment to Jimmy about someone as irresponsible as him wielding that much influence being like giving a monkey a machine gun. Some people might compare this to famous YouTube'ers who have rabid followers who'll send death threats to an opposition party, but the difference is, those YouTube'ers generally tell their viewers not to engage in bad act. In contrast Amos actively encourages the bad act. Also, sending death threats and online harassment is a huge gulf of distance from acts of child molestation.

Now I'm not advocating acts of violence against Amos Yee, don't go grabbing a Zippo and a can of gasoline and burning him alive, don't do that. Nor do I want him getting de-platformed or having his videos taken down. If his views are genuine, then I fully support revoking his asylum and deporting him back to his native Singapore (Singapore wants to do bad things to him? Not my problem.). I don't want him hurt, I don't want him silenced, I just don't want him in my country. He can say what he wants back in his native Singapore or what ever other country is ok with hosting a child molestation advocate. The whole point of letting people into our country is to further enrich the country in some form or another. Sex with children run completely contrary to our modern western social values. As a result Amos Pang Sang Yee, does not add anything to our society. He does not enrich our country in some form. Therefore he does not belong here and should be sent back to his native Singapore. If he's just trolling then he's treading some dangerous waters here, this isn't a game, real people could get hurt over this, and it doesn't make Amos any less disgusting. Either way Amos is a disgusting and monstrous individual who has no place living in the United States of America.



P.S.
I also find it funny that Amos says he doesn't want to live in a society where pedophiles are discriminated against. Like "Hey asshole, you came here of your own volition. No one's making you stay here." If Amos doesn't like it here then he's free to somewhere else, or to go back home.

P.S.S.
And it's also pretty twisted that Amos compares pedophiles to the LGBT community. Apples and oranges jackass, apples and oranges.

OK so maybe I was wrong.... Conceeding that "White privelege" and "rape culture" do exist, to a certain degree of course.

Ok, well I've reached a point in life where I've matured enough to be able to admit when I'm wrong. Two points in particular where I'm willing to concede some ground are in "White privilege" and in "rape culture". Now hold up, this doesn't mean I'm going to register as a Democrat...

So lets get started.

White privilege. 
So not too long ago there was another mass murder committed with a firearm and once again the usual suspects (well to do White people/Democrats) are talking about how no one needs guns and how we need more gun control. Well thinking about it more... telling an Asian-American, that they don't need to be armed to cover their own asses, that is "White privilege".

How is it "White privilege"? Well there's no denying that there is a lot of racism in this country's history, and that racism also includes racism against Asians. That racism against Asians has reached levels that include violence. Now that said it's certainly reasonable that an Asian-American would want to be armed, you know just in case, a hollow-point loaded .357 magnum tucked away somewhere or a 12ga shotgun loaded with 00 buck shells stashed in the closet, to protect against violent racists who might want to do them harm.

Now in this country, Whites, being the majority, don't really have those experiences that racial minorities have had. They never really had to worry about roving gangs of racists coming and killing them, roving gangs who's activities may or may not have local law enforcement complicit with. In other words, they don't need to worry about something the rest of us do/did and therefore enjoy a privilege in that regard.

Now given that they has less of a concern about racists coming to murder them, they have less of a need to take pro-active measures in their own self-defense. Which is fine, there's nothing wrong with that, I don't begrudge them for that. where it becomes an issue, is that these White people, many of them being well-to-do middle to upper class, don't realize that what applies to them doesn't always apply to others. Not everyone lives in a gated community with private security. Not everyone can just run, hide and call the police in full confidence that the police will arrive in time to save them. Yet they push gun-control on everyone assuming that we can all just live like them. They don't need to take extra steps to protect them, therefore no one does. They don't need a gun, therefore there isn't a single person in the country who would need one. Isn't that a privilege of being White? No fears of White supremacists coming after you?

Often they'll say "only the police should have guns", yeah well I guess they forgot about those times that police turned a blind eye to racist violence if not out right complicit in it.

So what does this all mean, am I going to say that everything is "White privilege?" No. Am I going to say that everything is racist and that we need to point it all out? No. What it means that gun-control, if not out right rooted in racism, is a product of "White privilege". So before you tell me that I don't need a gun, maybe you ought to check your privilege first.YOU, as a middle to upper-class White person might not need a gun, but can you honestly speak for a minority on this issue? Or should you just listen?


Rape culture.
I used to think this one was pure crap. Rape is a felony and there are laws in place to punish it. Barring biased judges like Judge Persky, the system works given how many people have been put away for rape. Given that we even have TV shows about hunting down child rapists.

Then came Harvey Weinstein.

Now I won't say that "rape culture" permeates all of society, even with Judge Aaron Persky's BS ruling and letting a rapist walk with a slap on the wrist, there were still armed people gathering around Brock Turner's house just waiting for a legally justifiable excuse to shoot him. BUT, given how many people knew of Weinstein's escapades, and did nothing about it, said nothing about it. And it isn't just Weinstein's serial harassing/bullying adult women. Word of child rape/molestation aren't exactly unheard of either, with Roman Polanski's name up on the top of the list. Given how many people have gotten away with so much, it can't be denied that there is a portion of society as well as a geographic region where "rape culture" is perpetuated.

That place is leftist Hollywood.

Hollywood is where Harvey Weinstein was able to take advantage of women to his heart's content. Hollywood is where Roman Polanski was able to molest a 10 year old and still have the support of prominent Hollywood figures. Hollywood is where parties are held where child starts like Coreys Feldman and Haim were passed around like the communal hooker.

If we take a look at the definition of "rape culture":

A society or environment whose prevailing social attitudes have the effect of normalizing or trivializing sexual assault and abuse.

Given that so many blind eyes were turned and so many people just accepted that that was how it was in Hollywood, seems like the sexual assaults/harassment and child molestation were normalized and trivialized. Hollywood sure seems to fit that definition to a "T".


Think about that for a moment, the same Hollywood that dogpiled Trump for a tasteless comment about grabbing horny groupie's pussies, is the same Hollywood that kept quite about a known rapists and their continued predation of young women and children entering the industry.

It's almost like that violently homophobic guy who turns out to be a closeted gay, who only acts that way to deflect attention from himself doesn't it...?

Given what's been boiling over in Hollywood, I can't say that there is no rape culture anymore. I don't think it permeates all of society like what radical feminists and con artists like Anita Sarkeesian would say. But I can no longer say it doesn't exist in the West when this kind of evidence is starting me right in the face.



So where does that leave me? 
Well I can no longer completely say that "White privilege" and "rape culture" are pure bullshit, I have to concede that to a certain degree, "White privilege" and "rape culture" exist. However I will say this... the left needs to shine their spotlight elsewhere. Maybe turn those lights around on to themselves.

Funny thing is, by accepting these leftist talking points as having a degree of truth to them, I've noticed more just how far off the mark the contemporary Left has gone since the period where I could call myself a "Liberal" which out having to add the "Classical" modifier in front of it. In other words, after accepting a degree of validity in these talking points, I see the contemporary Left in an even more negative light now. Yes there is a degree of "White privilege" and yes there is a degree of "rape culture" and the Left is complicit in it's perpetuation.The contemporary Left certainly doesn't have clean hands in this regard.

Did CNN also commit fraud? "CNN reserves the RIGHT..." (con't)

Thinking about it more...

CNN is a billion dollar media corporation, so presumably they would have a full time legal department. That said, CNN would have known that they don't have the right to put HanAssholeSolo on blast (as previously discussed), and yet the published the article stating that they did.

Well, lets do what we did before and apply the facts to the law. 

Fraud/Intentional Misrepresentation:

• a representation of fact; 

 So here the represented fact is that CNN has the right to release HAS's personal information.

• its falsity; 

Given that it would be the tort of Invasion of Privacy and possibly the crimes of blackmail and coercion, having the right to release HAS's personal information is a falsity.

• its materiality; 

It certainly would be material given that even CNN stated that HAS sounded uncomfortable about his private information being released when they were interviewing him. So CNN representing that they had the right to expose his personal information would certainly be material to all this.

• the representer’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; 

As mention, CNN likely has a full time legal department. That said, CNN would then have lawyers and paralegals to warn about the illegality of this action. Thus, CNN likely knew that it had no such right to being with.

• the representer’s intent that it should be acted upon by the person in the manner reasonably contemplated; 

Arguably CNN's intent was to have HAS apologize, demonstrate remorse, and refrain from continued conduct. Otherwise CNN would exercise their "right" to expose HAS's personal information.

• the injured party’s ignorance of its falsity; 

It's likely that HAS is not aware of his right or the applicable laws. Most people don't, and I've had more than one law professor lament that fact in class. Especially if the rumors that HAS is a 15 year old minor. Regardless, most people are unfamiliar with their rights and the various causes of actions they're able to sue under. Therefore being ignorant of the falsity of CNN's claim to have the right to expose his personal information.

• the injured party’s reliance on its truth; 

HAS did indeed take down his previous content and released an apology statement. Given that all this happened just after CNN contacted him, this is more than likely in reliance on CNN's representation of "rights" which it reserves. 

• the injured party’s right to rely thereon; and 

Given that CNN is "the most trusted name in news" there's little reason why someone who's a legal layperson like HAS wouldn't believe CNN when it tells him they have the right to release his private information. Opposed to some other random anonymous dickhead on the internet, this is CNN, a multibillion dollar media network. 

• the injured party’s consequent and proximate injury.

This would be the sticking point for HAS, HAS would need to demonstrate some kind of pecuniary loss otherwise the cause of action will fail. Right now, the harm is a deprivation of a civil right and not a monetary harm. HAS will need to show some monetary harm as a direct result of the depravation of the civil right, which itself would need to be shown to be the result of CNN's actions.

Conclusion - Fraud:
The whole action would hinge on two things, that CNN was aware that it had no such "right" for it to reserve and whether HAS is able to demonstrate a pecuniary loss.


Negligent Misrepresentation:

• Misrepresentation by the defendant in a business or professional capacity.

So here we have an employee of CNN who goes by "Kfile" who contacted HAS. He didn't do this as an individual, he did this as an employee of CNN as demonstrated by CNN's involvement in this whole thing. Thereby making the misrepresent in a business or professional capacity.

• Breach of duty towards plaintiff.

This would be a general duty by CNN to act as a reasonable, prudent media company in the given situation. A reasonable, prudent media company would check back with it's legal department if such communications with HAS was legal. Whether or not the way the communications were carried out would result in any kind of tort or crime. Because CNN failed to do so, this would constitute a breach.

While it was "Kfile" who contacted HAS, "Kfile" very likely did this as an agent, or on the behalf of, CNN. So while "Kfile" himself may know next to nothing about law beyond what the average lay person would know. So the average reasonable person in "Kfile's" position would float the matter over to the legal department first. As an agent of CNN, CNN would still be on the hook for his actions, and therefore "Kfile's" breach, is CNN's. 

• Causation

The harm here is HAS's internet speech being silenced. Given that it wasn't until the contact was made by CNN did HAS's shit-posting seem to stop. The reasonable inference here to be made is that the misrepresentation made by CNN of having the right to expose his personal information is the causation of the harm.

• Justifiable reliance

Well CNN is "the most trusted name in news" so when they say something it has the weight of authority behind it. In other words, CNN is a long established media network known for information media, so the average person would likely believe that CNN to be some level of authority on certain things. Especially when rights are involved given that CNN, being a large media company, likely has a legal department that "knows all that law shit". Therefore, for the average person, the average legal layperson, would justifiably relay on something CNN would tell them directly as an individual, as opposed to their reporting which Trump has declared to be "fake news".

• Damages

Damages here would be the sticky point for HAS, there appears to be no monetary damages and instead it appears to be a deprivation of a civil right. Same as above, HAS will have to demonstrate some form of monetary loss in direct relation to CNN's misrepresentation.

Conclusion - Negligent Misrepresentation:
Same as fraud, this will hinge on whether HAS is able to prove some kind of monetary loss that is the result of CNN's misrepresentation. Whether he can actually do that, there's not enough publicly known facts to argue that.

HAS would have a stronger cause of action in Invasion of Privacy as previously discussed, as well as potentially pressing charges against CNN for blackmail or coercion.   



Regardless, at the end of the day, if you get an unsolicited call or email from CNN...

"CNN reserves the RIGHT..." But does it have the right...?

CNN claims to reserve the right, but do they actually have the right? Well lets take a look at a couple of torts (torts are the kind of stuff you sue people over rather than the kind of stuff people go to jail for) here and see if that claim of having a "right" to reserve holds any water. If putting "HanAssholeSolo" on blast will resort in a tort, then they don't have the right.


Invasion of Privacy - Public Disclosure of Private Facts:
Requires the widespread disclosure of private information.
- The public disclosure must be objectionable to the reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.

- Liability may attach even though the statement is true.

- First Amendment limitations may apply if the matter is a legitimate public interest.

- Newsworthy exception: Example, Donald Trump's medical report may be published because it is a legitimate public interest.

-- Causation: The invasion of the Plaintiff's interest in privacy must have been proximately caused by the Defendant's conduct.

-- Damages: Mental anguish and emotional distress damages are sufficient.

Ok so there's our rules for invasion of privacy. Now lets look at the facts of this situation. Basically what happened was we had this guy on Reddit create a meme based upon a segment from Wrestlemania 23's "Battle of the Billionaires" segment, where he superimposed the CNN logo over Vince McMahon's head when he was clotheslined by Donald Trump. CNN traced the creator of the meme, uncovered his identity. CNN agreed not to put him on blast... but... they reserved the right to do so if he reneged on what ever their behind closed doors agreement was.

Now lets go though our rules and see what we get.

Widespread disclosure of private information.
Given that "HanAssholeSolo" is an alias, we can argue that his real name is of private information. Yes the person's name can be looked up, but the link between "HanAssholeSolo" and the guy's actual name, that link is likely to be private information. Like the link between Batman and Bruce Wayne.

The public disclosure must be objectionable to the reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.
More often than not, you'll find people online using aliases rather than real names. Many people on YouTube use an alias, on social media it's about 50-50 that people use their real names or a pseudonym. Then on PlayStation Network or Xbox Live, people almost exclusively use an alias. Now why would people use an alias, well naturally to protect their privacy. Given the level of commonality in the use of alias, more than likely it would be found that the public disclosure of someone's real name, when they use an alias online, would be objectionable to the reasonable person.

Liability may attach even though the statement is true.
Just because it's his actual name, won't shield CNN from liability. 

Newsworthy exception.
CNN might try to say that because this guy's meme was shared by President Trump that his identity has become newsworthy.

But on the other hand, these kinds of memes are a dime a dozen on the internet. After E3 2013 when the Xbox One and the PlayStation 4 were revealed we saw memes like THESE:


And we didn't see Microsoft bitch up a storm over this and accuse anyone of trying to incite violence against their employees. And these memes are arguable more graphic and violent than the Wrestlemania one. Memes like this are par of the course when it comes to the internet. The only thing that made this particular meme special was that Donald Trump happen to see it, and Tweeted it out on his account. Possibly without even communicating with HAS, so in other words, Tweeting it out without the creator's control.

CNN might have something here, but it would be a weak argument. Mainly because it's a meme that doesn't really have a direct impact on the public. It has no weight on public policy and to any reasonable person, Trump posting it is nothing more than a joke (bad taste or not) and not the establishment of violence against a particular company as a matter of public policy. Regardless of the persecution complex of said particular company.

The invasion of the Plaintiff's interest in privacy must have been proximately caused by the Defendant's conduct. 
The invasion of privacy would be HAS's personal information, real name, and likely employment/school attendance, and home address. If CNN did publish it, then their conduct would be the actual and proximate (direct) cause of the interest in privacy.

Damages.
Well nothing's happened... yet... by nothing I mean they have yet to put HAS on blast.

But say it did happen, it has been said that HAS sounded uncomfortable about his personal information being released. Given that then emotional distress and mental anguish would likely be what would result.

Conclusion:
Very likely, releasing his identity would resort in a tort, therefore CNN doesn't have a "right" to reserve.


So what else can happen here?

Defamation:

- Defamatory language: The statement must tend to adversely affect the Plaintiff's reputation, but must be more than name calling. There must be allegation of fact that reflects negatively on a trait or character.

More than likely releasing the link between HAS and the actual person behind the alias would have an adverse affect on his reputation with a very vocal segment of society. The allegation of fact being the linking of the HAS internet persona with the anonymous person behind the alias. It certainly would expose HAS to hate, ridicule and contempt.

Now CNN might point out that the personal information is not a falsehood, but whether that matters, we'll go into that later.


- Of or concerning the Plaintiff: A statement that a reasonable person would understand to refer to the Plaintiff.

It would be pretty clear that the statement would refer to the person behind HAS, so that element is going to be a gimme.


- Publication: Communication of the defamation to someone other than the Plaintiff.

TV viewers and anyone reading their internet articles would be "someone other than the Plaintiff", so that element would also be a gimme.


-Damage to the Plaintiff's reputation:
-- The type of damages to be proven depends on the type of defamation.

• Libel - Written or printed publication. Plaintiff doesn't need to prove special damages (suffering some pecuniary loss), and general damages will be presumed. 

So this would be like internet articles posted by CNN. With special damages not needing to be proved and general damages presumed, HAS wouldn't really need to prove anything other than the libel was created by CNN.

• Slander - Spoken defamation. Plaintiff will need to prove special damages unless it falls under one of these "slander per se" categories. 
• Adversely reflect on one's conduct in business of profession. 
• One has a loathsome disease. 
• Guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude. 
• A slut (well ok the term is "unchaste woman") 

Here unlike libel HAS will have to prove some kind of monetary loss, like getting fired and losing his livelihood. Give that we don't know who HAS is... yet... we don't know what kind of problems this guy can get into. But if he's in an industry where political incorrectness can get someone disciplined or fired, then very likely there will be general damages.


- Public or Private figure: This is important since for public figures there are two more elements the Plaintiff is going to have to prove (falsity and fault). Public figures are people like politicians, celebrities, prominent business men, and professional athletes.

HAS is Joe Schmoe, he's not like James Rolf, or maybe the Carl Benjamin who've become very well known because of YouTube. CNN even said he's a "private citizen". I don't think anyone would consider HAS a public figure.


- Defenses:
-- Truth: Truth is a defense in Common Law defamation.

This would be CNN's strongest defense, but it only applies to Common Law, what ever jurisdiction the hypothetical court this lands in might have a defamation statute with different provisions.


Conclusion:
This would hinge on two things, HAS being able to prove that the doxing is defamatory, and whether or not the jurisdiction just uses the Common Law rules. BUT, there probably is at least one jurisdiction where in this particular set of circumstances, truth is not a defense, so there is the possibility that under this, CNN would not have a "right" to reserve.


Now people are calling this Blackmail, well lets take a look at that next.

Blackmail:
When an offender threatens to disclose embarrassing information or information that is potentially damaging to a person’s standing in the community, family or social relationships, or professional career unless the victim surrenders money, property or services.

OK, given that we've already established that CNN does not have the right to "publish his identity should any of that change" we can reasonably construe that statement to be a threat to disclose information that is potentially damaging to that person's standing. Even if they did have a right to publish it, it's foreseeable that putting him on blast would get the anti-Trump hate mob after him and possibly even be in the receiving end of aggravated battery, or even killed by some antifa member. So either way this requirement would likely be met.

CNN isn't demanding money or property from HAS, but that article can be read as to be demanding and apology, display of remorse and removal of "offending" material. Requiring him to do something could be taken as surrendering a service.

Conclusion:
So all the people calling this blackmail, the #cnnblackmail, might actually be right. This could actually be blackmail on the part of CNN.

Now from my understanding there is a statute in New York called Coercion (Penal Law - PEN section 135.60).

A person is guilty of coercion in the second degree when he or she compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he or she has a legal right to engage, or compels or induces a person to join a group, organization or criminal enterprise which such latter person has a right to abstain from joining, by means of instilling in him or her a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will:

5. Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule;  or

 9. Perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm another person materially with respect to his or her health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships.


Ok lets unpack this thing. You're guilty of second degree coercion if you make someone do something or not or something that they have a right to do, or not do, by means of instilling fear that if the demands aren't complied with you or someone else will:

• Put them on blast
• Do something that doesn't really benefit you but is instead aimed at harming the person targeted. 

 
Basically we'd follow the same analysis we did on Blackmail. HAS has the right to make memes and just be a general asshole on the internet. CNN won't put him on blast so long as he apologizes, shows remorse, takes down his "offending" posts, and not repeat this "ugly" behavior on social media again. Essentially having him stop doing something that he has a legal right to do.

CNN will dox him if any of that should change. Given that HAS sounded uncomfortable with his private information being exposed, this would meet the requirement of instilling fear in him that if he didn't comply, something was going to happen, that something in this case would be 5, and 9.

Now elements 5 and 9 are met as I mentioned earlier, publishing HAS's personal information would be publicizing an asserted fact that would tend to subject him to hated, contempt or ridicule from the anti-Trump segments of society as well as be calculated to harm materially with respect to his health and safety at the very least given that this segment of society has a violent element to it.

So yes, the elements of this crime would also be met.


So what does this all mean then? It means that in this whole school bus fire if CNN releases his personal information then it's likely a tort (Invasion of Privacy, or, depending on jurisdiction, possibly Defamation) and being a tort, CNN would not have the right to publish his personal information to reserve to being with. Given the way this was carried out, is quite possibly blackmail and/or coercion, so we have a potential tort, and an on-going crime.

My advice to HanAssholeSolo?

Brooklyn hospital shooting: Why gun-control is not working in America

So a few days ago a deranged doctor went to a hospital and opened fire on people with a NY SAFE Act compliant rifle. Among other things the NY SAFE Act, bans "assault weapons", which are defined by the Act as:

A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics:

  (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

So basically this:

This is illegal in New York under the NY SAFE Act. Looking at what happened and where it happened what I get out of this is that gun-control doesn't work. It didn't work there and it didn't work in California which has equally strict gun-control, when two jihadists decided to shoot up San Bernadino, when a loser who couldn't get laid decided to shoot up a college town, and when a disgruntled UPS guy showed what brown could do for you.

I have two main points on why gun-control isn't working in America. First, it doesn't work because it's a copy-paste solution from places like Europe and the People's Republic of China. Second, simply put, gun-control proponents in the legislature (usually Democrats in states like California and New York) have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Both of these points go hand in hand.

A copy-paste solution from a foreign culture:
I've mentioned before, American cultural development is unique to much of the world. One of the ways that makes it unique from old world powers like Great Britain to the West or China to the East, is that the cultural identity of what's "American" didn't exist until after the invention and mass proliferation of the gun. Ancient empires like Rome were built and spread with the sword, but America on the other hand, was established and settled with the gun. Unlike Old World nations like France, the gun has marched though history with America from Day 0, there were no American knights who rode into battle. There were American colonial militia who took up their flintlock rifles. There wasn't a moment in American history where the gun wasn't there. Guns and the United States have a relationship with each other unique to the rest of the world. So in order to find an effect solution to this uniquely American matter, will require a uniquely American solution. America is the New World, as such, her problems will require a New World solution. Old World solutions won't necessarily work here.

The biggest reason why copy-pasting gun-control laws from Australia like what Hillary Clinton hinted at won't work here (and quite possibly played a factor in her losing to wresting heel like Donald Trump) is because Australia doesn't have the cultural relationship with firearms ownership that the United States does. The problem is, many of these politicians either don't understand this (which seems to be the case since they always point to solutions from the Old World), or they're attempting social engineering to remake American culture into something else. Regardless of which it is, they're essentially trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

Most politicians don't know what they're talking about:
Before you make rules about something, it makes sense to know about what that something is and what it does and how it does it right? You wouldn't write traffic laws without knowing anything about cars and how they operate. Well that's what's happening here. You might be wondering, these people have access to all sorts of experts that can educate them to make informed decisions, right? Well, that is true, but the operative word here is can, they can educate them, whether or not they actually do, is a whole other matter altogether.  

I can tell they don't know what they're talking about because all these rules and regulations they like to make up have nothing to do with a gun's internal mechanics. But everything to do with cosmetic features. For instance, this is the rifle used by the shooter (no I'm not going to name him, I'm not going to add to his infamy).

So what's the difference between that NY SAFE Act compliant rifle and the other one above that's illegal in New York? Mechanically? Nothing. The guts and internal working parts are identical. Hell you could even swap the parts between the one the shooter used and the one I posted up above.

Well why don't they just do a blanket ban on that kind of mechanism? Because the constitution doesn't let them. Semi-automatic technology, regardless of the method used, has been around since the late 1800s. Being such old technology, it has naturally proliferated though the civilian market, and is in common use. And speaking of "common use"...

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. - United States v. Miller (307 U.S. 174)

This ruling has been taken to mean that firearms in common use cannot be banned. The AR-15 is probably the most popular semi-automatic rifle in the US. As far as firearms go, it's literally the physical manifestation of "common use". Perhaps that's why politicians try to ban features rather than type or model line? I don't know maybe, or maybe I'm giving them more credit than what is due.

The other problem with this is that it ducks the human element behind the trigger. Like I mentioned, semi-automatic technology is over 100 years old, so what that tells me is that it wasn't the gun that changed, but it was us. Now was it us, in that now everything that happens gets attention/reported, meaning the number of instances has remained the same, we just hear about it more? Was it us, in regards to mental health? Was it us, in regards to society? What ever it is that changed in us, gun-control completely ducks the matter and moves the onus onto an inanimate object. It makes the gun a sacrificial talisman in order to avoid dealing with the real, and difficult, societal problems.

So what's the solution?
The solution is actually pretty easy, the only problem is, it's only as easy as we, as a country, make it out to be. What do I mean by that? Well, both sides are going to have to sit down at the same table and break bread.

As I mentioned, giving the politicians the benefit of the doubt, of just being ignorant as opposed to maliciously trying to remake American culture into what they think it should be, don't know what they're talking about. They don't know the mechanics and technicalities of firearms, nor do they understand the cultural impact and attachment. If they don't know, then who does?

The gun owning community.

They understand the technical details of how these weapons work, but more importantly, they're the ones who understand and appreciate their cultural effect. In other words, they know guns. Because they know guns, they're the ones who would know what works and what doesn't. The problem is though, in places like California and New York, the community is more often than not, left entirely out of the decision making process. That's why they're angry, the laws that get passed have major, direct impact on them, but they don't even get to have a seat at the table.

But, with how polarized American politics has become, thanks to both Hillary's divisive, us-against-them, identity-politics driven campaign and Donald Trump, well... being a WWE heel character, I don't think that'll happen any time soon. Neither side trusts each other, both sides are angry at each other, and both sides are doubling down on their positions. While there is common ground, no one wants people getting murdered, neither side is willing to budge on how that can be addressed. One side thinks recklessly passing knee-jerk emotionally based laws will accomplish something, while the other side thinks any dumbass yahoo should have a gun.

Guns are not f*ing toys! On the accidental youtuber shooting.

Ok so a couple days ago this happened...

A Minnesota woman killed her boyfriend Monday by shooting at a book he was holding over his chest, in an incredibly dumb YouTube stunt gone wrong.

19-year-old aspiring YouTube personality Monalisa Perez faces second-degree manslaughter charges for shooting her boyfriend, 22-year-old Pedro Ruiz, in the chest.

In terms of ridiculous social media stunt videos, you really can't get any more tragic. Ruiz was holding a large book up to his chest, which the couple thought would actually deflect a bullet fired from a monstrously powerful .50 caliber Desert Eagle handgun. The young couple was filming the clip in a desperate bid to gain more views on YouTube.

Ok... let me just get this out... Guns. Are. Not. Toys! A gun is a dangerous weapon that demands respect, the minute you don't respect it, you put someone in the hospital or the morgue with it. Like what happened here, the Desert Eagle .50 caliber Action Express is one of the most powerful handguns on the market. Let me put things into perspective.

On the high end (depends on loading, how heavy the bullet is, how much powder is packed into the case), the 9x19mm used by the military and most law enforcement organizations, hits with 617 joules of energy, that's more or less how much energy it hits with.

Dirty Harry's .44 magnum hits with 2078 joules at the high end. 

Then the .50AE, this thing hits at 2200 joules at the high end. Just to add more perspective, the standard NATO assault rifle round (used by the M-16, FNC, and the Sako) the 5.56x45 hits at 1843 joules at the high end.

The thing that really boggles the mind is that this wasn't some freak range accident, this was planned, planned all for Youtube fame. This is what happens when you blend narcissism with stupidity with a lack of respect for guns. I'm all for the 2nd Amendment, but with with great power (like 2200 goddamn joules) comes great responsibility. If you're going to wield something that powerful, you need to have the maturity and responsibility that it commands. Otherwise, you're just not ready for it.

As to the girlfriend... I'm going to say she's lucky she didn't get depraved heart murder for this. Thinking a book is going to stop a .50AE? How is that not reckless disregard/depraved heart?