this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
4 points (100.0% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
3382 readers
246 users here now
Rules:
- If you don't already have some understanding of what this is, try reading this post. Off-topic posts will be removed.
- Please use a high-quality source to explain why your post fits if you think it might not be common knowledge and isn't explained within the post itself.
- Links to articles should be high-quality sources – for example, not the Daily Mail, the New York Post, Newsweek, etc. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a comment removed, you're encouraged to appeal it.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the comments.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out [email protected] (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
(Edit: this was meant as a reply to an apparently now-deleted (?) comment about why he deserves the anonymity of having his last name abbreviated).
He deserves it for the same reason a single mother raising a kid that gets involved in an armed robbery deserves it: basic human rights.
The idea of those is that they are universal and you'd have to have a very good reason to supersede them. If they are not universal, then they are just "suggestions" and then we end up with exactly the kind of society that this guy wanted.
And yes, being a major political actor is a good reason to lose that anonymity (which is also how it's handled in European media, there is no reporting on Angela M. or Emmanuel M.).
But this guy is a not a public figure in any reasonable sense any more. He's a stupid old guy that was one of the founding members of a extreme-right splinter party of a right-wing popular party in 1967. That party was banned in 1988. So it (and he) has not been relevant to anything for 35 years. He tried to become relevant with this stunt, fucked around and found out.
In fact, reporting on his full name is probably what he wants: publicity is what he was attempting to achieve, but anonymity is what he deserves (both as a basic human right and as punishment IMO).
Is he charged with a crime or did he do a stupid international venture that is a continuation on the theme of his ridiculous political movement? Do leaders of racist boomer political movements deserve anonymity? Why couldn't he keep it confined to VierChan?
Edit: were it the case that his privacy was of primacy, why did it explicilty link him to his little "movement"?
Apparently by the Taliban, yes.
But in Europe that is not sufficient to lose the right to anonymity (and it shouldn't be, it's incredibly easy to get charged, no matter whether anything bad happened).
He isn't a leader of anything. Hasn't ever been (even when he was a founding member, he wasn't the leader).
He is a nobody (as he should be). And as such he deserves anonymity, yes. Just because he tried to change himself back into no-a-nobody doesn't mean he has succeeded.
Nazis are gonna Nazi.
Edit regarding your edit: yeah, that seems pretty fishy. I don't think they should have mentioned it, but with enough inside knowledge you'd probably find him by just "84 year old right-wing extremist blogger from Austria". That is (fortunately) not a huge population. I suspect (and this is purely speculation) that the authors don't think he deserves anonymity (so they include enough information to find out who it is), but do think they shouldn't "advertise" his cause (so they make it easy to ignore who he is). Similar to how media outlets in the US have finally decided to not publish the names of mass shooters: there is very little public benefit in publishing it and a very real risk of it encouraging others.