"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?