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?