Support NeoGAF

[redlemon]

Actually it doesn't. Contrary to popular belief, criminals do not lose all their rights like that.

You retain some rights, but not them all. I don't know how it is in america but privacy in my own country isn't an absolute right. You have the right to a reasonable expectation of privacy but that level of privacy depends on circumstances, who you are and the activity in question. If a journalist has to reveal details of your public life in order to correct a false statement made to the public it is their right to do provided it isn't deemed necessary or excessive which in this case I can't see how it would be since exposing the true purpose of the money reveals that she's trans by the nature of the operation.

 

[Sophia]

Also to everyone saying "she lost all rights to privacy after she committed fraud"

1: No
2: I'll go out on a limb and say the only reason she didn't outright say "it's for this" is because of this exact situation. It isn't accepted yet. Not even close. If we were a few years in the future, I bet it'd be different.

I'd like to think that a good deal of honesty on her part would have gone a long ways. But now I'm not so sure. Regardless, I hope she gets the help she needs and people get their money back from the scam.

Well, I guess not everything about the DSM-V is worrying; it's been portrayed as the satanic verses in the media, bred in the dark, evil catacombs of pharmaceutical companies. I find the name easier to stomach.

There are some problems with the DSM-V, but as a whole it's a pretty good thing because they're dealing with issues like that.

 

[Draft]

On the bright side this guy is free to get a real job.

 

[antonz]

Well, I called this.

No one would be standing up for you because you'd be granted that privacy implicitly through your privilege.

Except you are full of shit on this. If anyone of us on gaf of the so called privileged class were to do a massive scam trying to defraud gaffers out of tens of thousands of dollars you can bet your fucking ass every detail of our personal life would be hunted down and spread for the world to see.

Internet Detectives dont give a shit if yo are white, black, green or pink. You fuck up and they begin the hunt.

 

[Polari]

I won't do number, because you can search the thread for them, but I'll try to explain.
She is already suicidal, if she lives in a place that doesn't accept her lifestyle, this possiblity increases significantly.
Trans people are particularly targeted by violent bigots, not necessarily organised hate groups (like the KKK or something) because they're so far from being accepted that most of the time all it takes are groups of "normal" men who happens to cross her path and decide that she living the way she lives is provocation enough to warrant a death penalty there and then.

The LGBT community still is very much a target of hate violence and transgerder people, in particular, even more so. Thus, outing someone is not the same as simply protecting her privacy because privacy is nice and cozy, but is is protecting her privacy because protecting her privacy is protecting her from abuse, both physical and mental.

Look I agree that violence against transgender people is despicable, but I think we've gone off-course here. To say that outing someone who lives in Chicago as transgender on the Internet is putting them at a significant risk of being victimised in a hate crime is a stretch. He still probably shouldn't have outed her though, although she did to some degree invite it upon herself by committing that particular fraud.

 

[Sblargh]

The problem I have with this argument is that it already was public assumption that she was transsexual, and violent bigots only really need assumptions (see bigots killing Sikhs in the belief they were Muslim, for example). I'm not sure what the practical difference is.

The practical difference is what internet people do on reddit and what you do on your personal twitter account where people follow you because of your journalism job.

You could say she was already outed, so then there's even less reason to bring it up. Ha gave an official (kind of angry) voice to what was fuzzy anonymous noise. If what he says isn't important, then why do we care about his job in the first place?

 

[Marcel]

So... if someone commits a scam you think people shouldn't report it if it includes gender identity issues?

Please don't assume you know what I think. As a journalist, you are relaying the information important to the story. Was the gender identity relevant to the story? Yes. Was it handled the right way given the story's audience? Hell no.

 

[Ravensmash]

Perhaps I should have phrased that you won't need anyone to stand up for you. That's more accurate.

Regardless of what she did her gender identity isn't the public domain. People acting like outing her as trans* is the same as outing that someone smokes or doesn't like pizza or voted a certain way or like it's at all like anything else need to stop.

How is it not in the public domain if it's the core of her attempt to receive money from the donating public?

Do the public not have a fundamental right to know what their money is being spent on?

Granted, she did state that she was going to use left over money for another non-essential surgery which would help her with her life - but the actual campaign received so much traction and support BECAUSE the core cause was a life-saving operation which she detailed, and that detail has proven to be completely erroneous and nonexistent.

 

[baphomet]

Not if he was going to use the money to pay for illegal drugs or whatever.

It's what Chloe was using the money for that brought it to light. Sex would have never been brought up in question if the thievery was related to using it to buy drugs, or a new house. etc.

Sadly, it came up because of the topic of the lies told to the public.

Exactly. If it were stolen for drugs, video games, whatever it would have been reported if they knew it for fact. Just so happens she was stealing money for something she was trying to keep secret.

She brought it on herself, and thankfully we have a reporter who will actually tell the truth and not report half-stories like some in this thread seem to want.

 

[Kelegacy]

F her, I have no sympathy. He dug up the manure she was living under and got bitten in the process, which is shameful. Another sad win for scamtastic crowd funding and pathetic losers on the internet.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Actually it doesn't. Contrary to popular belief, criminals do not lose all their rights like that.

When your crime directly relates to a personal secret you're trying to hide you absolutely lose the right to that privacy.

 

[KojiKnight]

Also to everyone saying "she lost all rights to privacy after she committed fraud"

1: No
2: I'll go out on a limb and say the only reason she didn't outright say "it's for this" is because of this exact situation. It isn't accepted yet. Not even close. If we were a few years in the future, I bet it'd be different.

If you have to lie to get people's money, then it's best not to go that route.

She had other options she COULD have tried going through, but she wanted the quick and easy way... she probably didn't expect that it would get so big and garner so much attention. As I said, it was a poorly conceived scheme from the get go.

People need to understand that you can be outraged at what someone has done (such as making up stories and scamming people for money) and still be supportive of them and the cause they represent. I have several friends that are LBGT, and I support them fully... but you can't convince me that the truth should be covered up because the issue is sensitive. In fact, if anything this should get MORE attention... not less. Not because I'd ever want anything to harm her, but because if you keep the bad effects of these things in the shadows, they will ALWAYS be there.

We grow as a society when we hear truths, even if they are harsh ones versus just ignoring them and hoping the problems will somehow go away.

 

[Mugaaz]

And that justifies outing her?

You people are sick.

Yes, yes, yes, yes. If you don't want a spotlight on you I suggest not scamming the general public in the most scum-baggy deceitful way possible. I don't care if he's secretly a goat, terrorist, NRA member, or illegal alien. You're right to privacy is revoked when you deceive the public out of $30k.

 

[redlemon]

There is no "right" to be closeted and for people not to talk about your sexuality.

There definitely is. Your sexual orientation comes under privacy since it's sexual in nature and doesn't impact anyone else.

 

[BronsonLee]

Sorry, but that's a flimsy strawman. It doesn't matter if it was in the future: Point is, she lied about her intentions. Does it make it okay he gave the real reason? That's for you to personally decide in your own way, but the fact remains: She lied about her intentions and (personally) deserves the backlash she gets over it. If she was upfront about it instead of a long-term con pity-story, I don't think the backlash over that intention would be as bad.

I disagree. There's no situation that you can really compare this to. Could the backlash be lessened? Sure. Could it be significantly worse? Sure.

This is basically bleeding edge stuff here; everybody is flying blind.

And to be fair, I think everybody handled this about as wrong as possible, including her. I think that's more a product of the times than anything.

 

[ComputerMKII]

please ignore this post

 

[Omni]

Because it puts her life in danger. Permanently..

Oh okay.

I'm curius now. So where is the line, in your opinion? Let us take the Boston bombings. Was it wrong for the media to tell the world who orchestrated the attacks knowing full well that the suspect's Islamic ties would lead to other people's lives being put in danger due to revenge attacks? Should we just leave out any incriminating details if they represent a minority of the population?

 

[Askherserenity]

Also to everyone saying "she lost all rights to privacy after she committed fraud"

1: No
2: I'll go out on a limb and say the only reason she didn't outright say "it's for this" is because of this exact situation. It isn't accepted yet. Not even close. If we were a few years in the future, I bet it'd be different.

...Doesn't mean she should have done it. She committed fraud. Not only that, she said she needed life saving surgery because of some car accident. There are legal, moral, sane ways to go about what she wants to do. She outed herself out. She painted a giant look at me sign on herself. How did she think this was going to end up? She was just going to get free money off some generous people and just do what she wants to do with it? Seriously, c'mon.

 

[KojiKnight]

Please don't assume you know what I think. As a journalist, you are relaying the information important to the story. Was the gender identity relevant to the story? Yes. Was it handled the right way given the story's audience? Hell no.

What was the right way then? Please enlighten me. Was it simply to ignore it? But that contradicts the fact that you said it was relevant to the story. Or do you think this was simply a matter of gaming journalism and therefore shouldn't have been brought up at all?

You tell me not to assume to know what you think, but I never did. I asked a question. Nothing more nothing less. Judging by what you view as journalistic integrity and that uncomfortable questions should be avoided, I can understand how that would make you defensive.

 

[Delusibeta]

i can't find the thread about her that was on GAF a few weeks back, but was it all assumption? people were talking like her being trans was a known thing. i'm particularly confused.

I use the term "public assumption" and "oft-repeated internet lore" precisely because people were going around talking like it was a done deal despite a lack of evidence either way.

Here's the original thread. It starts on post #46, and the tone of the thread clearly shifted from there. Note that I was one of the people who didn't believe that theory.

 

[Sophia]

And to be fair, I think everybody handled this about as wrong as possible, including her. I think that's more a product of the times than anything.

I think that's actually the real core of the issue regarding the Destructoid writer. He had the most power in this situation to handle it better, yet chose the worst possible outcome.

 

[BRocknRolla]

Yikes. A lot of people in here claiming he's either a saint or a sinner based on very little information.

From what I read, this is a very complicated subject, and the controversy stems from a number of areas both questionable, and more objective. Regardless, I don't think anyone in here is in any real position to judge accurately what occurred and whether or not the people involved were in the right or wrong.

 

[ii Stryker]

don't they have an editor that checks the stories before they're posted you know like in real journalism?

 

[captainnapalm]

I just read this person tried to commit suicide while on some livecam streaming thing. This after trying to fleece the public for money by being less than honest. She sounds like an absolute trainwreck, honestly, and this journalist guy basically got caught in the explosion from a ticking and highly unstable bomb.

Apologies for the mixed metaphors.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

Oh okay.

I'm curius now. So where is the line, in your opinion? Let us take the Boston bombings. Was it wrong for the media to tell the world who orchestrated the attacks knowing full well that the suspect's Islamic ties would lead to other people's lives being put in danger due to revenge attacks? Should we just leave out any incriminating details if they represent a minority of the population?

Is kind of bad example because the Boston Bombings covarage in general (and on both Media and in the Internet) were a prime example of bad journalism and vigilantism.

 

[nbthedude]

There definitely is. Your sexual orientation comes under privacy since it's sexual in nature and doesn't impact anyone else.

No, it doesn't. A right is a legally entitled thing that you can take others to court for violating. I cannot and should not be able to take people to court for talking about my sexy time.

Again, people should try to be respectful of other people's privacy, but this has nothing to do with rights. An invasion of your right to privacy is someone going through your mail or house and belongings, not talking about you to others. That has nothing to do with privacy rights.

 

[The Albatross]

I came into post "wtf is this drama about..?"

On the bright side this guy is free to get a real job.

And then read this comment, laughed, and agreed.

if I have any wise words for the guy who got fired, it's that your job was shit anyway, and you can apply for a job in just about any other industry, doing something better, making more money, getting more respect, and nobody will ever even know this happened.

There definitely is. Your sexual orientation comes under privacy since it's sexual in nature and doesn't impact anyone else.

No, there isn't and that interpretation of privacy protection is not grounded in anything. Privacy laws (in the US) do not protect you from other people saying anything about you. They protect you from the government or other government-regulated entities from disclosing information about you that should not be disclosed (and especially using it in a court of law).

 

[aeolist]

no scam ever took place

the indiegogo campaign was cancelled

no money was taken

fraud was UNSUCCESSFULLY ATTEMPTED

please continue your awful discussion

 

[KojiKnight]

I just read this person tried to commit suicide while on some livecam streaming thing. This after trying to fleece the public for money by being less than honest. She sounds like an absolute trainwreck, honestly, an accident waiting to happen, and this journalist guy basically got caught in the explosion from a ticking and highly unstable bomb.

If absolutely nothing else, I think we can all agree with this statement 100%.

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

Protip: He isn't in danger of being fired for being honest, a journalist, or whatever.

He's in danger of being fired because he apparently outed a transgendered individual mere hours after they had attempted suicide, despite his bosses, the individual, and common goddamn sense telling him not to.

The fact that he also outright says "lol was a fraudulent campaign, believe me point of fact" doesn't help either.

He put the potential embarrassment of freaking IndieGoGo and Twitch.tv over a human life. He is no journalist.

Sorry, but if you defraud people so you can get plastic surgery, you 're the one inviting unwelcome attention to the secrets you want to keep. You kind of stop being an object of sympathy and protection at that point. We see this happen over and over again with media reports. The notion that there might be bigots out there who would disapprove doesn't provide blanket protection.

 

[Sophia]

Is kind of bad example because the Boston Bombings covarage in general (and on both Media and in the Internet) were a prime example of bad journalism and vigilantism.

I was going to ignore it, because I didn't like the fallacious nature of his question, but you pretty much summed up my feelings on it.

If absolutely nothing else, I think we can all agree with this statement 100%.

I hope she gets the help she needs, at any rate.

 

[Brick]

There definitely is. Your sexual orientation comes under privacy since it's sexual in nature and doesn't impact anyone else.

This persons sexuality absolutely impacted people to the tune of $30k.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

no scam ever took place

the indiegogo campaign was cancelled

no money was taken

fraud was UNSUCCESSFULLY ATTEMPTED

please continue your awful discussion

Eh... dunno about US law, but that is still a crime...

 

[Zen_Arcade]

There definitely is. Your sexual orientation comes under privacy since it's sexual in nature and doesn't impact anyone else.

Except in this case it did.

 

[BronsonLee]

I'd like to think that a good deal of honesty on her part would have gone a long ways. But now I'm not so sure. Regardless, I hope she gets the help she needs and people get their money back from the scam.

Nobody lost any money from the IndieGoGo thing. Anything else didn't finish taking fruition, I think.

If you have to lie to get people's money, then it's best not to go that route.

She had other options she COULD have tried going through, but she wanted the quick and easy way... she probably didn't expect that it would get so big and garner so much attention. As I said, it was a poorly conceived scheme from the get go.

People need to understand that you can be outraged at what someone has done (such as making up stories and scamming people for money) and still be supportive of them and the cause they represent. I have several friends that are LBGT, and I support them fully... but you can't convince me that the truth should be covered up because the issue is sensitive. In fact, if anything this should get MORE attention... not less. Not because I'd ever want anything to harm her, but because if you keep the bad effects of these things in the shadows, they will ALWAYS be there.

We grow as a society when we hear truths, even if they are harsh ones versus just ignoring them and hoping the problems will somehow go away.

I agree entirely. She should've been honest or not done it. This thing snowballed in the absolute worst possible way. Alistair did not help matters at all, especially hours after that ordeal.

...Doesn't mean she should have done it. She committed fraud. Not only that, she said she needed life saving surgery because of some car accident. There are legal, moral, sane ways to go about what she wants to do. She outed herself out. She painted a giant look at me sign on herself. How did she think this was going to end up? She was just going to get free money off some generous people and just do what she wants to do with it? Seriously, c'mon.

Yeah, just read the response above. Koji worded it way better than you did.

 

[Lambtron]

What the fuck are you saying now? This has nothing to do with that. I don't have any clue why just because the said perpetrator of a scam was both transsexual and suicidal makes everyone go "icky icky poo poo" and let it slide. The most immature shit I've seen in a while. You want equality? Then it doesn't matter if the person was straight, gay, bi, trans, whatever.

Can we please fucking stop with this OH I THOUGHT YOU WANTED EQUALITY? bullshit. Saying it's not the rights of other people to out a trans* person (or anyone else in the LGBT community) doesn't make them a fucking protected class.

This information was not his to share. If people are outraged over her "scam" fine. They can be upset. But that doesn't mean they "deserve" to know the particulars of her gender identity.

 

[aeolist]

If absolutely nothing else, I think we can all agree with this statement 100%.

haha nope

he did this to himself, the only thing he had to do to avoid it was obey the direct order given to him by his fucking bosses

or just not be a shithead

 

[nbthedude]

hahaha

What the fuck are you saying now? This has nothing to do with that. I don't have any clue why just because the said perpetrator of a scam was both transsexual and suicidal makes everyone go "icky icky poo poo" and let it slide. The most immature shit I've seen in a while. You want equality? Then it doesn't matter if the person was straight, gay, bi, trans, whatever.

As a pretty private gay man, I completely agree with this. To pretend this issue is about treating transgender people equally is kind of pandering and insulting.

She was douche bag to lie to people and try to take money for them when she wasn't willing to be honest with them about what it was for.

I don't care if she is trans. I don't care if she is suicidal. That is still a douche bag thing to do. A suicidal trans douche bag is still a douche bag. I empathize with suicidal people. I empathize with transgender people. But I do not empathize with douche bags. And the fact that someone is trans and suicidal does not eliminate the fact that they are being a douchbag.

 

[redlemon]

No, it doesn't. A right is a legally entitled thing that you can take others to court for violating. I cannot and should not be able to take people to court for talking about my sexy time.

Again, people should try to be respectful of other people's privacy, but this has nothing to do with rights. An invasion of your right to privacy is someone going through your mail or house and belongings, not talking about you to others. That has nothing to do with privacy rights.

It does. I was studying media law up until last week. While they wouldn't be specific to america I could bring up the relevant articles if I wasn't studying for exams right now. But if you look up cases to do with Article 8 of the human convention of human rights you'll find an answer.

Except in this case it did.

I know, that's what I've been saying.

 

[Polari]

Sorry, but if you defraud people so you can get plastic surgery, you 're the one inviting unwelcome attention to the secrets you want to keep. You kind of stop being an object of sympathy and protection at that point. We see this happen over and over again with media reports. The notion that there might be bigots out there who would disapprove doesn't provide blanket protection.

I'm not justifying the fraud, but "plastic surgery" probably has the wrong connotations. It is an important surgery for those affected to have.

Anyway, if the US would stop being such dicks and get a proper public health system we wouldn't be discussing this anyway. In the UK the surgery is covered by the NHS.

Also, people on both sides of this discussion seem certifiable. Fucking hell.

 

[Akira_83]

no scam ever took place

the indiegogo campaign was cancelled

no money was taken

fraud was UNSUCCESSFULLY ATTEMPTED

please continue your awful discussion

oh SORRY... attempted scam

there thats better and now were all terrible people and poor Chloe.. etc etc

oh what im the bad man for trying to kill someone? dude it was just ATTEMPTED murder.. its not the same... somehow

 

[Lambtron]

Sorry, but if you defraud people so you can get plastic surgery...

Well we've now officially passed the threshold of ignorance I'm willing to put up with in this thread. I'm fucking out.

 

[Marcel]

What was the right way then? Please enlighten me. Was it simply to ignore it? But that contradicts the fact that you said it was relevant to the story. Or do you think this was simply a matter of gaming journalism and therefore shouldn't have been brought up at all?

You tell me not to assume to know what you think, but I never did. I asked a question. Nothing more nothing less. Judging by what you view as journalistic integrity and that uncomfortable questions should be avoided, I can understand how that would make you defensive.

It's my opinion that most people in the gaming journalism community (writers, commenters, editors etc.) don't have the tact or maturity to handle complex issues of the transgender. I say this as a transgender person that is generally disgusted by what happened on all sides, but mostly by the reductionist people who want to marginalize this issue by reducing it to, "He or she deserved it", "Scammers get what they deserve", "You don't have rights as a scammer" etc.

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

no scam ever took place

the indiegogo campaign was cancelled

no money was taken

fraud was UNSUCCESSFULLY ATTEMPTED

please continue your awful discussion

No. The definition of fraud doesn't require the perpetrator to get away with it.

 

[Acerac]

I think a large portion of him being let go would be related to the way he approached the situation. If he didn't purposely refer to her as the wrong gender perhaps there'd have been less of an issue.

 

[GrizzNKev]

no scam ever took place

the indiegogo campaign was cancelled

no money was taken

fraud was UNSUCCESSFULLY ATTEMPTED

please continue your awful discussion

looooooooool

as if the fact that the fraud was unsuccessful makes any difference at all. Why are some people so inexplicably protective of a person who attempted to commit fraud just because of their sexual situation?

Of course the circumstances were terrible and this girl needs help, but that doesn't mean what she did was acceptable.

 

[Traumahound]

no scam ever took place

the indiegogo campaign was cancelled

no money was taken

fraud was UNSUCCESSFULLY ATTEMPTED

please continue your awful discussion

Sideshow Bob: Hah! Attempted murder? Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry? Do they?

 

[Zen]

And that justifies outing her?

You people are sick.

In terms of the story, if it explains her reasoning for taking the money?

Get off your high horse. Showing disparate protectionism, if you're actually abput equality, is pandering and insulting to LGBTs and also to everyone who actually believes in equality. Get your head on straight, mate.

 

[Akira_83]

I'm not justifying the fraud, but "plastic surgery" probably has the wrong connotations. It is an important surgery for those affected to have.

Anyway, if the US would stop being such dicks and get a proper public health system we wouldn't be discussing this anyway. In the UK the surgery is covered by the NHS.

I dont think its ok to call out the US for this, i believe in our current healthcare system and would be upset if my tax dollars were funding operations I do not view as necessary

 

[Daingurse]

Sideshow Bob: Hah! Attempted murder? Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry? Do they?