Dox? All the information he put out is available to the public. Trump is willing to accept doxing from anyone. Foreign or domestic. This is very hypocritical, Mikey. The first amendment is not the private domain of the Republican party.
https://www.fec.gov/This is not Wikileaks.You have the right to publish this crap. I have the right to criticise it.
Well Ramirez, if you don’t like it, how about you publish a list of all the folks that contributed to Castro?
Of course you’d probably be showing how popular he is. You’d probably also be showing a list of people that aren’t trying to hide their connection to the candidate.
If publishing a list of Trump supporters is a negative thing, doesn’t that mean that supporting Trump is considered….negative?
From “The Hill”, today:“Castro, the brother of Democratic presidential candidate Julián Castro, came under fire this week from House GOP leaders and President Trump’s campaign for tweeting the names and business interests of dozens of donors to Trump’s reelection campaign.On Monday evening, following that weekend’s mass shooting in El Paso, Texas, Joaquin Castro tweeted the names of 44 Texans who donated the maximum $2,700 to Trump, specifically calling out the owners of several prominent businesses in San Antonio, where the Castro brothers are from.Federal candidates are required to disclose the names and employers of donors who contribute $200 or more in Federal Election Commission filings, which are publicly available online.However, it is unusual for a lawmaker to publish the names and business interests of individual donors of another campaign.”
1. Mr. Castro exercises his right to free speech by stating publicly-held information.
2. Mr. Ramirez gets himself all spun up and commits a political cartoon on the order of slander, but, Mr. Ramirez is also exercising his right to free speech.
3. He was probably shocked and disgusted that someone to his left was calling people out! Shocked, I tell you!
If money is political speech should that speech be anonymous? Don’t we have a right to know who’s yelling “TRUMP” so loudly and why? When one’s opponent in a statehouse race in a district with a 25% unemployment rate gets a million dollars in support, doesn’t every voter in that district deserve to know where that money came from? All of this could be solved with publicly financed elections and a requirement that ALL media companies, as a condition of their licence, be required to provide equal time and resources to all qualifying candidates FOR FREE. And I don’t think even MSNBC would go for that.
It’s obvious what Castro was trying to do. Make people pay for supporting Trump. It’s become a tactic of the left that quite frankly alienates anyone who is not already solidly in their camp. Dumb.
Really Mikey? You have a problem with 2 sections of the 1st amendment? The ones about “speech” and “the press”… (that you pretend to be a member of). FOIA you ignorant self hating hypocrite.
Some people are born in cesspools; some people fall into cesspools; some people create their own private cesspools and carry them around with them wherever they go.
I suggest we take a step back and look at this from a neutral corner.
For an elected public official to target private citizens in this manner is disturbing, and is not habit any of us want to see continue.
Please note also from links and text below that doxing includes the use of public information as well as hacked or stolen private information.
According to Wikipedia: (which I usually don’t use but seems appropriate in this case)
“Doxing (spelling variant Doxxing) is an abbreviation of document tracing, the Internet-based practice of researching and publishing personally identifiable information about an individual. The methods employed in pursuit of this information range from searching publicly available databases and social media websites like Facebook to hacking and social engineering. It is closely related to cyber-vigilantism, hacktivism, and cyber-bullying.”
I would also suggest that some of you review the legal definition of doxing. In many cases it IS illegal even when the source material is in the public domain.
Statutes vary from state to state, but it is generally accepted that publishing personal data for the purpose of shaming or harassment or to incite harassment by others will fall under cyber-stalking or similar statutes.
Best you folks stop being so quick to defend this practice. Not only is it a dangerous practice in out hyper-inflamed political climate, but it may indeed be a criminal act depending on the intent of the publisher. At the very least Castro should lose his Twitter account. It is absolutely a violation of service terms.
cageywayne over 4 years ago
Dox? All the information he put out is available to the public. Trump is willing to accept doxing from anyone. Foreign or domestic. This is very hypocritical, Mikey. The first amendment is not the private domain of the Republican party.
https://www.fec.gov/This is not Wikileaks.You have the right to publish this crap. I have the right to criticise it.
superposition over 4 years ago
Strange how some public servants want all their activities kept private.
Patjade over 4 years ago
Since when is putting out easily attainable, public information doxxing? Do you idiots even KNOW what you’re talking about?
Zebrastripes over 4 years ago
On the contrary….Joaquin did America a favor….putting it out there for those who aren’t aware….
Durak Premium Member over 4 years ago
Well Ramirez, if you don’t like it, how about you publish a list of all the folks that contributed to Castro?
Of course you’d probably be showing how popular he is. You’d probably also be showing a list of people that aren’t trying to hide their connection to the candidate.
If publishing a list of Trump supporters is a negative thing, doesn’t that mean that supporting Trump is considered….negative?
6.6TA over 4 years ago
From “The Hill”, today:“Castro, the brother of Democratic presidential candidate Julián Castro, came under fire this week from House GOP leaders and President Trump’s campaign for tweeting the names and business interests of dozens of donors to Trump’s reelection campaign.On Monday evening, following that weekend’s mass shooting in El Paso, Texas, Joaquin Castro tweeted the names of 44 Texans who donated the maximum $2,700 to Trump, specifically calling out the owners of several prominent businesses in San Antonio, where the Castro brothers are from.Federal candidates are required to disclose the names and employers of donors who contribute $200 or more in Federal Election Commission filings, which are publicly available online.However, it is unusual for a lawmaker to publish the names and business interests of individual donors of another campaign.”
1. Mr. Castro exercises his right to free speech by stating publicly-held information.
2. Mr. Ramirez gets himself all spun up and commits a political cartoon on the order of slander, but, Mr. Ramirez is also exercising his right to free speech.
3. He was probably shocked and disgusted that someone to his left was calling people out! Shocked, I tell you!
Radish the wordsmith over 4 years ago
Speaking of Doxing, the list of rich and powerful men who slept with the young girls Epstein procured is on the net by the order of a judge.
Court releases documents about Jeffrey Epstein, accused in sex traffic case, and his alleged procurer Ghislaine Maxwell
CNBC.com21 hours ago
Unsealed flight logs show that Trump was on Epstein’s private jet in 1997
Insider20 hours ago
Jeffrey Epstein’s connections to Donald Trump and Bill Clinton
Vox1 week ago
ED CANTWELL over 4 years ago
If money is political speech should that speech be anonymous? Don’t we have a right to know who’s yelling “TRUMP” so loudly and why? When one’s opponent in a statehouse race in a district with a 25% unemployment rate gets a million dollars in support, doesn’t every voter in that district deserve to know where that money came from? All of this could be solved with publicly financed elections and a requirement that ALL media companies, as a condition of their licence, be required to provide equal time and resources to all qualifying candidates FOR FREE. And I don’t think even MSNBC would go for that.
guyjen2004 Premium Member over 4 years ago
It’s obvious what Castro was trying to do. Make people pay for supporting Trump. It’s become a tactic of the left that quite frankly alienates anyone who is not already solidly in their camp. Dumb.
streetbeater over 4 years ago
Really Mikey? You have a problem with 2 sections of the 1st amendment? The ones about “speech” and “the press”… (that you pretend to be a member of). FOIA you ignorant self hating hypocrite.
MartinPerry1 over 4 years ago
Don’t tell me those donors are ashamed to be known publicly about who they support. I guess they figure “A man is known by the company he keeps.”
oldlegodad71 Premium Member over 4 years ago
Hung hisself last night ! NPR
Zev over 4 years ago
Epstein was a dead man the minute he was denied parole and it looked like the trial was actually going to happen. Suicide my ass.
dogday Premium Member over 4 years ago
Some people are born in cesspools; some people fall into cesspools; some people create their own private cesspools and carry them around with them wherever they go.
AndrewSihler over 4 years ago
Publishing matter that’s in the public record is not “doxxing”. It’s really no different from a run-down of how a representative or senator voted.
In fact it’s sort of surprising that the donors in question are so embarrassed. Or maybe it’s not surprising at all. . . .
Andylit Premium Member over 4 years ago
I suggest we take a step back and look at this from a neutral corner.
For an elected public official to target private citizens in this manner is disturbing, and is not habit any of us want to see continue.
Please note also from links and text below that doxing includes the use of public information as well as hacked or stolen private information.
According to Wikipedia: (which I usually don’t use but seems appropriate in this case)
“Doxing (spelling variant Doxxing) is an abbreviation of document tracing, the Internet-based practice of researching and publishing personally identifiable information about an individual. The methods employed in pursuit of this information range from searching publicly available databases and social media websites like Facebook to hacking and social engineering. It is closely related to cyber-vigilantism, hacktivism, and cyber-bullying.”
I would also suggest that some of you review the legal definition of doxing. In many cases it IS illegal even when the source material is in the public domain.
https://patch.com/massachusetts/malden/what-is-doxing-yes-it-is-illegal
https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2018/01/is-doxing-illegal.html
Statutes vary from state to state, but it is generally accepted that publishing personal data for the purpose of shaming or harassment or to incite harassment by others will fall under cyber-stalking or similar statutes.
Best you folks stop being so quick to defend this practice. Not only is it a dangerous practice in out hyper-inflamed political climate, but it may indeed be a criminal act depending on the intent of the publisher. At the very least Castro should lose his Twitter account. It is absolutely a violation of service terms.