Little FreakOutNation: Conservative Blogger Charles C. Johnson Unearths 'Insane' Pics Of Mike Brown Just Being A Teenager
Charles C. Johnson, a blogger who runs GotNews and previously contributed to the Daily Caller and Breitbart, has been on a roll lately trying to besmirch the Brown family, including Michael, the slain Ferguson, Missouri teenager.
After filing requests to see Michael Brown‘s alleged juvenile crime records, and coming up empty, he suggested hacking the deceased teenager’s social media accounts.
I wonder if it’s legal to hack dead people’s social media sites…— Charles C. Johnson (@ChuckCJohnson) September 5, 2014
Today he writes on his site, “Gotnews.com has exclusive obtained social media postings of Michael Brown that destroy the media narrative that Brown was nonviolent.” For some reason, he added the ‘GotNews’ watermark on the pictures, as if he owns the rights to them, even though they are from the late Michael Brown’s account.”
He called this pictures ‘insane.’ No, really.
Did Charles C. Johnson hack Michael Brown’s Instagram account? That would be considered illegal if he did. The big dummy even added captions, such as, “Mike Brown getting ready to bust a cap selfie.”
The caption for this one reads, “Mike Brown showing his Trayvon style black hoodie.”
OMG, Mike Brown’s hoodie is BLACK!
Now he’s really uncovered something that will rock the foundation of Mike Brown’s shooting death: Mike wore jewelry. Johnson captions this one, “Mike Brown sporting some bling bling.”
I wear some jewelry, too. Please don’t shoot me Charles. My hands are up, mmkay? As it happens, I’m wearing two rings, too, and a gold chain, but mine has a cross and two lockets on it. I guess I’m more of a gangsta than Mike was. That’s right, I’m a 56-year-old bling wearing, gangsta! Bitchez better look out.
MOAR earth shattering news: Mike Brown quoted song lyrics.
A teenager smoking weed? That does it. Darren Wilson is innocent, because no teenager ever has smoked weed, me included (wink wink).
The most sickening part of Johnson’s post is that he concludes it with, “If you like the work Gotnews.com does and want to continue funding our research or lawsuits, please consider donating here.”
I refuse to link to his grifting FundMe page. At teenager is dead. He’s trying to trash Mr. Brown’s character and even linked him with another slain teen, Trayvon Martin.
My #WCW this week goes out to the six heroes of the women’s reproductive rights movement.
They are: Sonia Sotomayor, Sandra Fluke, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sarah Slamen, Wendy Davis, and Cecile Richards.
Earlier this month, Facebook quietly changed its guidelines on nudity and obscenity to ensure that photos of breastfeeding mothers won’t be flagged for review and removed from the site, even if a nipple is exposed. Feminist activists, who have been pushing the social media giant to address what they say is a double standard in the way that Facebook regulates explicit content, are celebrating the move.
Although Facebook’s Community Guidelines never included an explicit ban on breastfeeding photos, the site does have a strict policy against images of female nipples. Images of women breastfeeding, as well as photos of breast cancer survivors displaying their mastectomy scars, frequently end up getting pulled from the site. Instagram, the photo sharing site that’s owned by Facebook, has been plagued with similar controversies, as women’s accounts have been suspended for posting photos of feeding their children.
Now, Facebook’s and Instagram’s policies both specify that photos of breastfeeding don’t violate their terms of content, and note that users are free to post those images. “We agree that breastfeeding is natural and beautiful and we’re glad to know that it’s important for mothers to share their experiences with others,” both sites now state.
“What we have done is modified the way we review reports of nudity to help us better examine the context of the photo or image,” a Facebook spokesperson explained to the Daily Dot. “As a result of this, photos that show a nursing mothers’ other breast will be allowed even if it is fully exposed, as will mastectomy photos showing a fully exposed other breast.”
The change was first reported by feminist activist and writer Soraya Chemaly, who has been a central player in the ongoing fight to overhaul Facebook’s policy. Last year, Chemaly was one of the activists who pointed out that Facebook was allowing users to post graphic content related to rape and domestic violence while censoring innocuous images related to women’s health. Chemaly argues that companies’ bans on explicit content often end up policing female nudity for no good reason.
“From Facebook, to the Motion Picture Association of America ratings systems, to the Federal Communications Commission ‘nipplegate’ indecency rules, ideas about ‘obscenity’ continue to be calibrated to heterosexual male erotic consumption,” Chemaly writes. “The rules around the way society sees women’s bodies continue to mean that women are not in control of their own bodies or how people think about us.”
Breastfeeding in particular continues to be somewhat contentious when it’s done in public, despite the fact that major medical groups agree it’s important for women to breastfeed if they’re able to do so. Women have been asked to stop feeding their children in church, at the pool, during jury duty, and at the mall. Last month, a young woman graduating from college received backlash for snapping a photo of herself proudly breastfeeding her daughter in her cap and gown.
It’s still unclear how well Facebook’s new policy will work in practice. After one parenting blogger posted a photo of herself breastfeeding to test the new content guidelines, Facebook initially took down the photo and she went back and forth with the site’s administrators for several days before it was restored. And a Colorado mother says that her account was temporarily suspended after she changed her profile picture to an image of breastfeeding last week.
I flatly disagree with #DuckDynasty star Phil Robertson’s opinions on LGBT rights, Islam, and the Black community in the Civil Rights Movement-era. A&E was correct to suspend him indefinitely. He has his 1st Amendment rights to say vile nonsense, but not the right to get off scot-free from any punishment from his employer(s).
#PhilRobertson #TeamSuspendPhil #Homophobia #Islamophobia #racism #bigotry #1stAmendment #freespeech #instaliberal #instapolitics
Hoping and praying that my home state of Illinois becomes the 13th state to pass same-sex marriage. #IL4M #Illinois #MarriageEquality #LGBTQ
It’s time to make Illinois the 13th state to legalize marriage equality, and all the House has to do is vote YES on #ILSB10! #IL4M #Illinois #MarriageEquality #LGBTQ #ig #Instagram
Stan Musial sign on the Outfield Wall of #BuschStadium in #STL. #RIPStanTheMan #StanTheMan
Tonight on The #EdShow: The person who exposed Mitt Romney’s #47percent comments has been leaked, and his name is #ScottProuty.
#FLOTUS Michelle Obama at #2013SOTU. #SOTU #MichelleObama #instapolitics @flotus
Beyoncé performing at #SuperBowl47. #SuperBowl #SB47 #SBXLVII #Beyoncé #harbowl #halftimeshow
Musial Tribute at #BuschStadium. #STLcards #MusialFuneral #RIPStanTheMan #StanTheMan #StanMusial #stl
Do it for the folks in Illinois! Legalize #MarriageEquality in the state of #Illinois! #ssm #ILove #IL4M #ILequality #LGBTQ #ILmarriageequality #p2 #lovecounts #LandOfLincoln #samesexmarriage
After confusion over its new Terms of Service, which implied Instagram might sell photos to advertisers, Instagram CEO Kevin Systrom responded this afternoon in a blog post. Systrom said that he and the company are “listening” and that they plan to “modify specific parts of the terms to make it more clear what will happen with your photos.”
The part that most users will be happy to hear? “It was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing. To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos. We are working on updated language in the terms to make sure this is clear.”
He also said he wants to clear up the confusion about Instagram’s intent to put anyone’s photos in ads. “The language we proposed also raised question about whether your photos can be part of an advertisement. We do not have plans for anything like this and because of that we’re going to remove the language that raised the question.”
But while today’s battle may be over, the backlash and the distrust of Facebook as Instagram’s owner will likely continue. On Twitter it quickly became known as “Instagate.” Many took to blaming the new policy changes on Facebook.
"In fact, the real lesson here isn’t about the legal implications of Instagram’s terms of service — it’s about how little we trust Facebook to do the right thing," Nilay Patel, the managing editor of the tech site The Verge and a former patent attorney, said in an article.
Ultimately though, “Instagate” might have been a good reminder for users of just how quickly companies can change their policies and the awareness they should have of them. “It’s a good reminder for users in an age of the personal cloud to understand just what vendors can do with their content and how they choose to monetize,” Michael Gartenberg, research director at Gartner Inc., told ABC News. “I suspect very few users bothered to read Instagram’s original terms of service and therefore the ‘new’ terms simply made them aware just what they agreed to.”
h/t: ABC News
Instagram said today that it has the perpetual right to sell users’ photographs without payment or notification, a dramatic policy shift that quickly sparked a public outcry.
The new intellectual property policy, which takes effect on January 16, comes three months after Facebook completed its acquisition of the popular photo-sharing site. Unless Instagram users delete their accounts before the January deadline, they cannot opt out.
Under the new policy, Facebook claims the perpetual right to license all public Instagram photos to companies or any other organization, including for advertising purposes, which would effectively transform the Web site into the world’s largest stock photo agency. One irked Twitter userquipped that “Instagram is now the new iStockPhoto, except they won’t have to pay youanything to use your images.”
That means that a hotel in Hawaii, for instance, could write a check to Facebook to license photos taken at its resort and use them on its Web site, in TV ads, in glossy brochures, and so on — without paying any money to the Instagram user who took the photo. The language would include not only photos of picturesque sunsets on Waikiki, but also images of young children frolicking on the beach, a result that parents might not expect, and which could trigger state privacy laws.
Facebook did not respond to repeated queries from CNET this afternoon. We’ll update the article if we receive a response.
Another policy pitfall: If Instagram users continue to upload photos after January 16, 2013, and subsequently delete their account after the deadline, they may have granted Facebook an irrevocable right to sell those images in perpetuity. There’s no obvious language that says deleting an account terminates Facebook’s rights, EFF’s Opsahl said.
Google’s policy, by contrast, is far narrower and does not permit the company to sell photographs uploaded through Picasa or Google+. Its policy generally tracks the soon-to-be-replaced Instagram policy by saying: “The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our services.” Yahoo’s policies service for Flickr are similar, saying the company can use the images “solely for the purpose for which such content was submitted or made available.”
Reginald Braithwaite, an author and software developer, posted a tongue-in-cheek “translation” of the new Instagram policy today: “You are not our customers, you are the cattle we drive to market and auction off to the highest bidder. Enjoy your feed and keep producing the milk.”
One Instagram user dubbed the policy change “Instagram’s suicide note.” The PopPhoto.com photography site summarized the situation by saying: “The service itself is still a fun one, but that’s a lot of red marks that have shown up over the past couple weeks. Many shooters — even the casual ones — probably aren’t that excited to have a giant corporation out there selling their photos without being paid or even notified about it.”
Twitter on Monday evening launched new colored photo filters for users of its iPhone and Android apps. The multicolored filters, which are provided by photo-editing app companyAviary, put Twitter in more direct competition with Instagram, which recently disabled the ability for Twitter users to see full Instagram photos shared on Twitter.
But Twitter’s photo editor now not only displays full photos, but offers one feature Instagram does not: a view showing each filter applied to a specific photo in a grid.
h/t: TPM Livewire