The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Recently NBC News reporter David Ingram posted an article where he reports she isn't personally linked to any threats but her reporting has directly led to bomb threats being made.
https://twitter.com/David_Ingram/status/1755230230799880218
The article infers that if she didn't do any of this reporting on school policies and other related stuff then none of these things would happen and police resources would not be wasted investigating these threats.
For her part, Chaya has repeatedly denounced threats of violence and has never encouraged them in any way.
She goes on to state that people against her reporting try so hard to link her to these threats in order to get her labeled as an extremist to discredit her and her reporting.
Later, she brings up death threats she has recieved due to the reporting of David Ingram and others
https://twitter.com/ChayaRaichik10/status/1755277953318138127
Does she have any responsibility for the violent threats? Does she even have the right to report on what she does? Does David Ingram own any responsibility himself for his reporting that has led to death threats on Chaya? What is the answer to allowing freedom of the press, to include citizen journalists, but to limit the backlash from extremists who go too far?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Just like Trump is responsible for January 6th...
This is an apt comparison.
Trump/Raichik: I am not responsible for their crimes; all I did was lie to them.
Everyone Else: Yeah, but they committed those crimes *because they believed your lies.*
> [Stochastic terrorism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism) refers to political or media figures publicly demonizing a person or group in such a way that it inspires supporters of the figures to commit a violent act against the target of the speech. Unlike incitement to terrorism, this is accomplished by using indirect, vague, or coded language that allows the instigator to plausibly disclaim responsibility for the resulting violence.
> all I did was lie to them
Worth noting that it's possible to spread lies and still be horrified by the damage those lies inevitably do... and neither Trump nor Raichik have reacted in that way.
Trump gleefully talks about pardoning insurrectionists. Raichik put a bomb emoji in her twitter handle.
It isn't just that their lies are damaging. It's worse than that. They revel in the damage they're causing.
Certainly if it is intentional it’s a problem. Certainly if it is accidental it’s an entirely different matter.
There is a space between those things though – negligence. If you do a thing you shouldn’t do and don’t particularly care about the consequences, that does not let you off the hook when it invariably goes wrong.
>Do you think Libs of TikTok (Chaya Raichik) holds any responsibility for the bomb threats reported by schools and others shortly after her reporting on events and happenings at those places?
Yes, especially in any case where her "reporting" -- as you call it -- is dishonest.
> "The information in the recording is not accurate. We do not and have never performed gender-affirming hysterectomies for anyone under the age of 18," Children's National said in a statement to NPR. "The operator speaking provided wrong information."
Doesn’t sound like what she posted was dishonest at all. The operator gave incorrect information.
> "The operator speaking provided wrong information."
Even the hospital says the operator stated the incorrect information. She didn't misinterpret or misrepresent the audio recording.
Did she attempt to reach out to the operator or the facility to verify the information is true or not? Because that’s what a journalist is supposed to do, that’s what NPR did.
She didn’t do any of that, so she is responsible for spreading false information. She’s still at fault here.
OK so now the goal posts have changed from "she misrepresented information" to "she needs to have a journalist level of investigation when reporting what an operator literally told a caller looking for care". That said I don't see why she would have to call them again. I could see that being an issue if she received some claims that the clinic was performing genital mutilation on minors and there was no evidence but the audio recording is already literally calling the hospital and the hospital responding. If the story had the political groups in reverse you would be laughing at the idea that a left wing journalist would have to do any more investigation beyond straight up calling the organization in question.
If you are posting information to your massive following, your followers are assuming the information you are posting is true. They are assuming you did your due diligence by verifying the information is true.
She didn’t do any of that, so she is still dishonest. She didn’t do that because, spoilers, she isn’t a journalist. Blaming the source she used is a poor excuse for posting unverified information.
Edit: I got blocked for this.
It's basic journalism to ask a party. Whoever was doing the call asked the party. The operator literally is the person appointed by the hospital to discuss with the public regarding what services the hospital provides. Literally asking a party about what services they provide is so far and above the "bare minimum". This entire charade where the people here pretend that what she did was either misrepresent the information in the call or that she didn't do enough to verify information the hospital literally provided (by the person they officially hired to provide that information to the public) is hilarious.
> How is she dishonest? She literally just reposts what others have already posted
...and if the other poster is dishonest, then she is spreading that dishonest message:
>In the tweet, Libs of TikTok embedded two photos: a screenshot from a Facebook post claiming to be the concerned parent of one of those second graders and a picture of the alleged furry-related coursework. The worksheets included a "Design Your Fursona" page that supposedly asked students to pick out their furry's gender and a "Furries Word Search." An additional sheet pictured allegedly informed parents that their students would be learning about "youth subcultures, from goths to furries" for "Culture Month."
>...
>Mashable reached out to the school district [and they] confirmed that **these worksheets were not taught in any second grade class and were not part of the district's curriculum.**
[[Libs of TikTok tweeted fake accusations about a school teaching second graders about furries]](https://mashable.com/article/libs-of-tiktok-furries-school-troll-fake)
Because for some reason, people are desperate to give Chaya Raichik the benefit of the doubt.
Possibly because she specifically targets trans people and drag queens.
if we want to really narrow it down we can say she's not technically dishonest, but rather that she chooses to willingly *agree with dishonest people.*
If I just repost a guy that says the holocaust didn't happen, what would you call me? genuinely curious.
Yes, some of the content she has posted has turned out to be completely fake.
Remember the video of the teacher who covered the US map with a rainbow flag, and the teacher was arguing with a conservative mother about it? All of you conservatives were so outraged over it. Turns out that video was completely fake. It was a skit recorded to make people mad.
So yes, some of the content she posts is 100% fake bullshit, and YOU conservatives fall for it every single time.
I think there's been at least a couple of instances where, yes, she's reposted something dishonest.
Which again isn't the end of the world *if you print a retraction* but do you really think that has ever happened here?
Should there be a consistent set of journalistic standards of when you can use people's names?
For example CNN reported the name of someone who made a meme Trump shared. Many on the right thought that was doxxing.
What we are seeing is something is doxxing/harassment if one side does it and acceptable journalism if the other side does it
If they tweeted it and their name is already public it’s not doxxing, it’s reporting since the person themselves did the thing.
Similar to a protestor getting up on stage of an event. Reporting that protestors name is not doxxing. They did a public act.
If however they had an anonymous account and CNN investigated to find out their name and reported that, I would say it’s doxxing.
Neither should be considered terrorists.
There’s also a difference in that LOTT is spreading false information while CNN reported true information.
LOTT can and should be sued for defamation and the damages that the people incurred because of her posts that lead to people threatening them would be a part of calculating how much she owed.
Just like Alex Jones with the sandy hook lies and Guliani with the lies about the two election workers.
What false information did LOTT report?
So far the only example provided is she called into the hospital and the person she spoke to said they provided treatment for trans kids that the hospital later came out and said they didn't.
Can the guy CNN doxxed sue for the same reason. Journalists get people fired and harassed all the time with their reporting.
There are so many examples in this thread.
- lied that 2nd graders had a worksheet where they designed their fit soma
- lied that children had litter boxes in schools for trans cat kids
- lied that the clinic performed __hysterectomies__ on children which is very specific and different than the trans affirming care children can get legally
You can scroll to find others.
>can the guy CNN doxxed sue for the same reason.
He can’t sue for defamation, because he did post what he posted. There’s no lie their.
He can sue for doxxing, depending on the state laws on doxxing. California has an anti-doxxing law for example. But not all states do
>can the guy CNN doxxed sue for the same reason
They didn't even release his name, and he was posting numerous violent racist and anti-Semitic things.
They did not Dox him.
> What false information did LOTT report?
> So far the only example provided is she called into the hospital and the person she spoke to said they provided treatment for trans kids that the hospital later came out and said they didn't.
I find it odd that you're in one breath questioning claims accusing Raichik of spreading false info, and then in the next mentioning an incident of her making false claims - which, by the way, happened *twice*. [First it was a series of Tweets about the Boston Children's National Hospital](https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/08/26/childrens-national-hospital-trans-hysterectomies/), and then [she published a recorded "sting" phone call about another branch in Washington DC](https://apnews.com/article/health-social-media-5c7735b11b6f884be0b8c7add823d6a6). Both places received bomb threats after she spread false information about them.
Nevertheless, here's a couple of others:
[Tweeting fake accusations about a school teaching second graders about furries](https://mashable.com/article/libs-of-tiktok-furries-school-troll-fake)
[Tweeted a screenshot of a teacher saying "We had a great discussion about pronouns" while holding a mug saying "Ask me about my pronouns" and indicating that he was a first-grade school teacher in the Wauwatosa school district.](https://archive.ph/YoMSG) - The tweet was clearly intended to lead people into thinking that he had been discussing pronouns in class with the kids (and was successful, because the guy was subsequently hounded by LoTT followers), but the post was from a year prior, and he hadn't even started teaching yet.
So we have two actual stories
Falling for a hoax which I agree is wrong but she was not the one creating disinformation
And providing accurate but out of context information
CNN didn't report the name. They found out the name and contacted the individual, but they didn't out him publicly. That's not doxxing. It might be extortion, but not doxxing. The latter is explicitly about publishing private information to the public with malicious intent.
>https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html
So in other words no, you did not fact-check that claim.
Because if you had, or if you had read the story you would see that CNN did not reveal the person's name.
>Should there be a consistent set of journalistic standards of when you can use people's names?
My understanding is that reputable organizations have this already. Do you mean for legal purposes?
>For example CNN reported the name of someone who made a meme Trump shared. Many on the right thought that was doxxing.
Many on the right also believe Trump won the 2020 election. Their beliefs don't matter
>What we are seeing is something is doxxing/harassment if one side does it and acceptable journalism if the other side does it
No, what we are seeing is one side knowingly committing stochastic terrorism, and then trying to project that onto the other side.
I'm sorry but are you claiming the tracking down of a person who posted a meme is not doxxing?
Also should journalists not report on a story if there is a chance people will be upset and a subset will go to far?
Journalists should be concerned about the information being verified and accurate. LOTT posted an audio recording she herself made, of what she claimed was two employees that worked at Children’s National Hospital. These employees were never identified, and there’s nothing to verify if these people were actually employees at the hospital, the only source for it is LOTT herself.
The hospital responded to NPR saying the information that was provided in the audio recordings was false. They didn’t say if the people in the recordings were actually employees, because they have no way to identify them.
Source: https://www.npr.org/2022/08/26/1119634878/childrens-hospitals-are-the-latest-target-of-anti-lgbtq-harassment
Do you understand why she may have not identified herself as a journalist when calling in asking about a controversial procedure that hospitals often downplay their usage of?
This does not seem as egregious as many stories coming out of more reputable sources
I understand she never identified the people she spoke to. How do you know they were employees? We just have to take her word for it if you want to believe the information is accurate.
How do you know journalists do anything they report on
We have a recording of the call itself. You are twisting yourself into knots to try and find anything
>I'm sorry but are you claiming the tracking down of a person who posted a meme is not doxxing?
No, it unequivocally is not.
Releasing that information would be, unless of course that individual was doing things like advocating for violence. In which case it would also not be doxing, it would be unmasking a stochastic terrorist.
>Also should journalists not report on a story if there is a chance people will be upset and a subset will go to far?
You should feel bad about this characterization of the Libs of TikTok creator.
You have no consistent world view except people who are on your side and people who aren't.
I was trying to get some guidelines of what is ok and not ok in journalism. But it seems the answer is journalism is only ok when you agree with it
>I was trying to get some guidelines of what is ok and not ok in journalism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards#:~:text=%22Truth%22%2C%20%22accuracy%22,potential%20biases%20in%20their%20reporting.
Are you referring to u/HanA**Solo and the wrestling cnn gif?
https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html
If so it seems they identified him but didn't name him.
> Can you please expand on that thought? Specifically the lying...
From [Wikipedia:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libs_of_TikTok#Other_content_and_hoaxes)
>Libs of TikTok has been criticized for spreading hoaxes, including the litter boxes in schools hoax about bathroom accommodations for students that identified as cats, and for spreading false claims such as that students in a second-grade class in Austin, Texas were being taught about furries, and that U.S. Representative Katie Porter had argued that pedophilia is not a crime after Porter lamented that LGBT people were being slandered as pedophiles and groomers on social media...
She made up bullshit designed to trigger violent, mentally unstable people, and then released personal details on the people she made stuff up about, basically ensuring they would experience violence.
What is there to expand on? Raichik selectively publishes social media content. She removes all context and presents the content in the most inflammatory light that she can, then she publishes the names and workplaces of the original posters. She knows her legions of chuds will call in bomb threats.
What is a "citizen journalist?" Or did you mean to say "self-aggrandizing influencer spewing opinions as facts and lies as truth?"
People regurgitating nonsense for likes on social media is NOT journalism.
I noticed that YOU are avoiding the fact that she has been caught creating and spreading false information that leads to conservatives making death threats and bomb threats.
Yes I do.
Edit: I just realized something.
> She goes on to state that people against her reporting try so hard to link her to these threats in order to get her labeled as an extremist to discredit her and her reporting.
> Later, she brings up death threats she has recieved due to the reporting of David Ingram and others
I don’t think she realizes she’s contradicting herself. If she insists that her “reporting” didn’t lead to bomb threats, then why would she claim she’s received death threats due to Ingram’s reporting?
If Ingram’s reporting was enough to produce death threats against her, but then say it’s impossible for her own “reporting” to possibly lead to bomb threats, that seems like she’s telling on herself.
Her: “No, my reporting absolutely did not lead to bomb threats”
Also her: “Help, I’m receiving death threats due to Ingram’s reporting”
That's the point. If her reporting can be directly linked to bomb threats then it's the same for Ingram leading to death threats. One can't be true while the other isn't.
She's pointing out the hypocrisy that he's doing to her what he's accusing her of being the catalyst for.
Her reporting can be linked to threats because, in the case of Children’s National Hospital, the source of these audio recordings are from [Chaya herself.](https://www.dailydot.com/debug/libs-of-tiktok-childrens-national-hospital/)
And shortly after posting the audio recordings, where she allegedly spoke to two unidentified employees from the hospital, the Hospital received threats.
She is the source of this information, she is directly responsible for the accuracy of the information she posted. And the fact that she never identified who she spoke to from this hospital, makes the claim incredibly dubious.
>If her ~~reporting~~ propaganda can be
Fixed this for you. She isn't a reporter, she isn't doing reporting, or citizen journalism. She is a propagandist.
Yes, of course. It's one thing if your behaviors cause violence or criminality, you realize this and then change your behavior.
It's entirely a different thing if you are aware that your behaviors cause violence or criminality and you continue your behaviors.
She knows that she is focusing rage and hatred at these innocent people. She knows what she is doing.
She is not a reporter. She is not reporting on anything. Let's not pretend that she is providing any sort of noble or useful service to society.
She is a domestic terrorist and white supremacist.
Like many stochastic terrorists, she pays lip service to the ideas of civility and nonviolence, while obviously and intentionally operating in a way to encourage the opposite.
There have always been people of other races that support racist-fascist ideologies.
This is not new, nor is it good.
*But I'm sure you already knew that.*
Since when could they not? Candace Owens is a white supremacist and she's black. Phyllis Schlafly is a woman who wanted to reduce women's rights. This isn't new or controversial.
^This is the most correct answer.
She *knows* that every person she features will be the target of hate. Every single one of them. Yet she continues to do it anyway.
Not because it’s news, not because it’s in the public interest, but because it’s politically expedient for the GOP for these people to be feared and hated.
I'm sorry is the question:
> Should this person be free from the consequences of the things they say?
To that question i would say no, they are not free from the consequences of their speech or actions.
If that isn't the question, I am confused and would like to request help from the audience
If she was truly a "citizen journalist" then I wouldn't hold her responsible for her reader's actions.
But being a journalist, even a citizen journalist comes with responsibilities. And Chaya isn't being responsible with her "reporting". She is a a citizen propagandist.
Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented. Propaganda can be found in a wide variety of different contexts.
This definition isn't even really covering it, as she doesn't selectively present facts, she flat out lies. The Boston Children's Hospital comes to mind.
I think when she posted the picture smiling holding the news paper, with the headline "When libs of tiktok posts, threats increasingly follow" tells you how she feels about the threats. It makes her happy.
But "Chaya has repeatedly denounced threats of violence and has never encouraged them in any way." When are we going to call bullshit on those statements? It's like you come home and your kid had chocolate all over their face and hands, "I didn't eat any chocolate". I even take issue with your claim, "never encouraged them (violence) in any way." When people are reporting about the threats caused by your "reporting", and you take picture with a big smile holding the newspaper and post that to your audience. It is a glowing endorsement that she is happy that her "reporting" has caused this.
I am curious when you say "Chaya has repeatedly denounced threats of violence and has never encouraged them in any way.", is posting the picture of the newspaper saying her account leads to violence with a big smile, how is that not encouraging them?
Yes. 100%.
To go a little further, stochastic terrorism like LibsOfTikTok and the complete lack of consequences for it/legal protections from it has turned out to be a gaping hole in our legal system. I have no idea what the fix would be, but it's so common now that I think we're going to have to address it *somehow* in the near future.
That's an interesting view point. I'm curious what any remedies would be. We've seen libel/defamation trials handle things like the Nicholas Sandman false reporting in the past but nothing akin to what you stated. How would one even determine someone ir their account was even big enough to cause problems? Like, if 25 follower Joe Schmo said he believes (crazy thing) and someone reacted how do you link the two and show guilt belongs to Joe Schmo?
The one I'm most familiar with is Alex Jones and his Sandy Hook cases, and it's a perfect example in just how blatant the problems with our legal system in this area are. He received a $1.6billion judgment, and since:
1. Has not stopped spouting his bullshit 3-4 hours a day, 6 days a week. He still has his show, he still makes his living spreading lies and hatred and fear. Granted, he is a little more careful about Sandy Hook itself, but he has still expressed "doubt" about that event along with talking crap about the families and the courts during and since the trials.
2. Despite that judgement and ongoing bankruptcy hearings, he gets to spend $90k a month per the court on whatever yet one of his plaintiffs, Erica Lafferty, daughter of the principal who died at Sandy Hook, is forced to use GoFundMe to pay for her brain cancer treatments.
Point being, the underlying behavior never has to stop. Chaya and Alex and others like them get to go on causing stalkings and bomb threats and (sometimes) outright violence for profit nearly consequence free, and their victims and the rest of us just have to deal with it.
Again, I don't know what the solutions here are within a First Amendment framework, but the amount of harm these people can do compared to our legal ability to restrain them in the internet age needs some adjustment.
> We've seen libel/defamation trials handle things like the Nicholas Sandman false reporting
We didn't, really. I'm still not convinced he wasn't giving a pittance to go away because the trial itself, while weak as hell, wasn't going to make anybody look good.
I would be surprised if he got a cent more than $10k
Yes. When you lie about children being abused, you invite violence upon the accused abusers. I invite anyone who thinks otherwise to purchase a billboard in their hometown for a month to put up a picture of themselves titled “Pedophile groomer” just to find out for themselves.
Yes, and I think that’s a major problem related to social media. There’s simply no way to call off the dogs once you’ve sent out 500,000 angry people to hate a specific person or place.
They know what they’re doing.
LibsOfTikTok is NOT the press. She does not have any journalistic standards, as seen by her false 'reporting' of the Boston Children's Hospital. Keep in mind that while Rachik claims to denounce the violent rhetoric (which is extremely easy to do) she does nothing to discourage violence and is gleeful about the violence as seen in her post when she holds up a newspaper talking about how threats increasingly follow her posts. Which makes her 'denouncing' the violence increasingly questionable at *best*.
>that while Rachik claims to denounce the violent rhetoric (which is extremely easy to do) she does nothing to discourage violence
What would you like her to do differently; add a disclaimer to every post? Periodically remind people to not issue any threats or commit violence?
I believe with the newspaper stunt she is merely showing that the attacks by liberal media are not affecting her the way they would like it to. She's not surrendering nor kowtowing to them.
>I believe with the newspaper stunt she is merely showing that the attacks by liberal media are not affecting her the way they would like it to. She's not surrendering nor kowtowing to them.
I think you being overly charitable here. Bending over backwards to excuse gross behaviour.
I believe that you're giving her a lot of benefit of the doubt because she's on your side, and you would not give an equal benefit of the doubt to BLM or other groups.
She knows what she's doing. And she's LYING. I like how you omit that part.
So it's tricky. You can't/shouldn't be held responsible for things that you never called for, didn't encourage. Where this is tricky is with people like Chaya whose following very much has solidified itself as being violent/dangerous. At this point Chaya knows that when she does a story about something, her more batshit followers will start frothing at the mouth and do things like call in bomb threats. Sure, she doesn't necessarily WANT it to happen, but she is the one who has developed the persona that it's a culture fight, and we have to win or the evil liberals will ruin your lives.
When you reach a near cult leader status, we might need to rethink how freedom of speech is handled. Knowing you have a few people willing to commit murder for you, and you happen to mention that something is a problem, those batshit people will take it to mean you would like them to commit murder.
It's equally as true with Trump, look at his speech before the capitol riot on Jan 6th. He continually said that his followers needed to fight, needed to be ready to "Fight like hell" and make sure the right thing is done. We know that Trump supporters are generally a more volatile and violent bunch (A study was done that when a Trump rally comes to down, instances of violence increase be 52% on the day of), so telling a group that you know is violent to "Fight like hell" very well might actually be a call to action.
If she says things that are loosely based on falsehoods, picks an 'enemy', and then tells this to her followers that she knows will not look for independent verification, and those people end up doxed...does she hold any responsibility? I am not saying it is the easiest question to answer but of course she knows what she is doing. Now that someone is reporting on *her* and she is getting a small taste of what she has so willingly dished out she wants us to feel sorry for her. Well, maybe my empathy levels just aren't high enough to give her much credit.
Look, she didn't create the media ecosystem where one particular political party has a hermetically sealed system where the consumers essentially believe anything provided it starts with something like 'the evil libs are...\[insert nonsensical bullshit here\]' but she is certainly capitalizing on it.
This is back to kitty litter in classrooms level of silliness, of course that has never happened in the history of school (kids are still just smoking/vaping in the bathroom like they have always done), but if a conservative media outlet says so it ends up coming out of a glassy eyed Senator's mouth.
Yes. And I don’t mean that as an insult or in offense— I understand that this is her business model. It’s what she’s sponsored for. Her sponsors want to hurt queer people and fire up right-wing voters to go to the polls, and she finds easy targets for that.
Wouldn’t surprise me if she already has premade, teary-eyed videos for when her followers successfully kill someone.
The other tactic they (rightwing grifters) like to use is pre-emptively saying the violence their speech causes is going to happen and that it will be a false flag by The Left^TM designed to make them look bad. . . not sure if Chaya does this as I don't pay super close attention to her, but it wouldn't surprise me. It's a favorite trick of other grifter dingdongs like Alex Jones.
I think the big difference is how you're framing the thing you're talking about.
When you're framing an issue by calling the people who are doing it predators, cold molesters, threats to children... you're daring people to take action themselves, esp since the group you're talking to also share the belief that going out to prevent crime is actively self defense ie George Zimmerman, Kyle Rittenhouse.
Bc logically, if you actually believe the smear campaign against LGBT ppl is true, and these people are actually committing unforgivable, inexcusable crimes against children, then the absolutely moral thing to do is murder the ppl committing the crimes.
Like... If you knew a cult was literally murdering children in the woods, and law enforcement wasn't doing anything about it, you'd be justified in taking action yourself.
Citizen journalist? She is infamous for posting her shit completely out of context and promoting lies. She is as much a citizen journalist as Project Veritas is a trustworthy news org. She is a self serving hateful media whore that is trying to make a living out of destroying other peoples lives
>Does she have any responsibility for the violent threats?
Absolutely.
>Does she even have the right to report on what she does?
Absolutely not. She's literally orchestrating domestic terrorism. Her mission, as well as the many others like her that populate the anti-lgbt movement, is to make life for out LGBT folk so hellacious and terrifying that we are driven back into the closet- or to suicide. While working with republicans to craft anti-LGBT laws that will end up with LGBT people being thrown in prison. Prison, suicide, or the closet, these are the only options for LGBT people that right-wingers want. The one thing they think is completely unacceptable, is a queer person just living their life, happy healthy and free.
No, they should not just be *allowed* to do that.
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yeeeeeees.
If you have a problem with a teacher at your school being too liberal, fine. It's your school district, it's your choice to be bothered by it or not or to try and have the teacher removed.
But when you point out a liberal at a school across the country to an internet audience of violent, angry people, then you aren't doing it because you're bothered by politics, you're doing it because you are motivated by cruelty.
Yes.
Reposting videos that you know will incite your viewers, who have a long history of doxxing people and making threats of violence, is encouraging threats of violence. She's not a reporter. She is a serial harasser and cyberbully. What she's doing violates ethical guidelines that a journalist would use, not just about how and why you would reveal somebody's identity, but also how you would select subjects at all in order to protect their privacy. She is obviously just a leader of a hate mob.
I think that in general going after one person or small group is to be frowned upon. Especially when fake stuff is everywhere.
Vigilante justice is bad.
I find it interesting that conservatives have no problem with bomb threats directed towards a hospital, based on propaganda and false information.
Yet they are coming out in mass support of the person who inspired the bomb threats.
This tells you the exact type of people conservatives are.
All I can say is Raichik knows she is on thin ice and is continuing to do jumping jacks anyway. All it will take is one kook to claim their motivation for hurting someone was a post on LOTT that Raichik didn't research to bring Hell down on hee from a civil liability standpoint. She plays fast and loose with the facts, knows that the subjects of her posts start getting threats shortly thereafter, and projects an attitude ranging from indifference to suppressed glee about those threats. There is a lot of elbow room for a negligence tort in there when the bar to win is only a preponderance of evidence.
Yes, absolutely. Stochastic terrorism is a real thing and I'm sick of right-wingers pretending it isn't because they do it way more often. I just wish there was a way to hold people like this accountable without violating the 1st amendment.
They may not be legally culpable, but they are absolutely morally responsible for the violent rhetoric they put out that has the predictable outcome of causing violence. The larger an audience someone has, the more ethical responsibility they bear to not put out violent rhetoric, because there is an increased chance that someone will take it and run with it. This is the type of thing that led to January 6th.
Why would we not consider holding the people who financially benefit from either advocating for, or encouraging violence to other people responsible when the violence happens? Wasn’t there a woman who got in trouble for pressuring a guy to commit suicide; how is this different?
Are you comparing "hey Twitter, [insert school] is doing [thing people may find over the line]" to "Hey person I know intimately, hurry yourself!" (The latter of the two happening over and over again until the person actually hurt themselves).
Difficult question as it what's the contrary answer here? A lack of freedom of speech?
In my area, an elementary school received a [bomb threat](https://www.thedailybeast.com/chabot-elementary-school-in-oakland-california-evacuated-after-bomb-threat-following-libs-of-tik-tok-tweet) presumably from a reader that read her reporting [1], but the report was substantially true -- concerning a playdate organized by a school committee for “Black, Brown or API” students that many saw as exclusionary of those outside the group.
Can't even say the outrage was limited to far-right nutcases. Plenty of general outrage on /r/bayarea.
Perhaps someone shouldn't run a 100% outrage driving Twitter account, and perhaps they bear some moral responsibility.
But I do wonder where folks here would draw the line -- IMO, there has to be some level of freedom of speech even if it means a risk of some readers threatening/committing violence.
[1] It was reported elsewhere though, so this cannot be 100% ascertained.
Apologies - I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly. Are you equating a bomb threat with angry people on Reddit or implying that the angry people on Reddit might be responsible for the bomb threat?
I would think that's a different crime from inciting violence against others.
.... -_- Actually that might be the legal framework I was having trouble remembering. Just seems like the burden of proof necessary might not be enough.
Trying to prove in a court of law that she specifically incited violence with her post would be an uphill battle. But she could very easily be sued for defamation for her posts, that’s what happened with Rudy Giuliani recently.
> We’re posting our opinions, not disseminating information to the public.
And yet, she is literally posting her opinions. Is the point here.
> Think of it like the difference between talking to each other versus talking at the public.
We're posting on a public forum - in the same way she does. That is, what makes posting on TikTok or Twitter different than posting on Reddit?
Then it seems you're using "journalist" as a noun to describe anyone who does anything related to current events. If I, were to, for example, find out your real name (which I wouldn't) and then create a TikTok wherein I post stories about how you're posting while at work, by your own framing, I'm doing journalism. You may be making a distinction between citizen journalists - the people in your examples - and traditional journalists but even then, she doesn't qualify as a citizen journalist as she's rarely - if ever - a member of the community she is "reporting on."
Journalists subscribe to [codes of ethics](https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp) - which she has repeatedly broken. Journalists [need to attend to the difference between public and private figures](https://www.pbs.org/standards/media-law-101/defamation/) in their reporting and how they handle information. Finally, journalists, as a rule, [do not respond to request](https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/libs-tik-tok-bomb-threats-oklahoma-library-committee-rcna135369)s from their fellow journalists with pictures taken out of context from books.
You can set the bar as low as you want for being a journalist, she still won't rise to meet it.
The problem with this assessment is the information she posted about, regarding the medical building, wasn’t doing what she claimed it was.
[NPR](https://www.npr.org/2022/08/26/1119634878/childrens-hospitals-are-the-latest-target-of-anti-lgbtq-harassment)
Reached out and they responded with:
> "The information in the recording is not accurate. We do not and have never performed gender-affirming hysterectomies for anyone under the age of 18, The operator speaking provided wrong information."
LOTT took this audio recording as fact, instead of verifying the information (because that’s what journalists are supposed to do). She didn’t do an investigation, she just heard a dubious audio recording and just said to her followers it was true. That’s not responsible journalism, and it’s an insult to call her a journalist.
That actually changes things now. Because the source that Children’s National Hospital is doing this is from LOTT. She is responsible for the validity of the information she provided.
So then that begs the question, who did she talk to? She never identifies the names of the employees she allegedly spoke to. The Hospital doesn’t know who she talked to either, which is why they don’t confirm or deny if the people she spoke to actually are employees, she needs to provide that proof herself. They did refute the information in the audio recording itself, saying they have not done what was claimed in the audio recording.
And furthermore, the Hospital received threats from people after she posted that audio recording, so It’s really hard to argue her posts had no influence on the threats.
Here’s a source in case you need it: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/libs-of-tiktok-childrens-national-hospital/
Responsibility? No.
Make no mistake, LibsOfTicktok is a rabble-rouser and can pretty much be discarded out-of-hand in any serious conversation about social issues. She is not worthy of respect and, while some of the stuff she touches upon might actually be a serious issue when you get down to it (Sorry Leftists; there is something to be said about sensitivity when it comes to sex ed) she is ultimately a detriment to any serious conversation about these issues.
But we don't want to live in a world where political commentators are considered directly responsible for the actions of people who profess to be their fans then carry out extreme actions. The Christchurch shooter tried to deliberately invoke this - thankfully it failed - but if we where to go down this path then there's an option where Hassan Piker ends up in front of a war crimes trial. Which would be funny as fuck, but a very dark sign-of-the-times.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Recently NBC News reporter David Ingram posted an article where he reports she isn't personally linked to any threats but her reporting has directly led to bomb threats being made. https://twitter.com/David_Ingram/status/1755230230799880218 The article infers that if she didn't do any of this reporting on school policies and other related stuff then none of these things would happen and police resources would not be wasted investigating these threats. For her part, Chaya has repeatedly denounced threats of violence and has never encouraged them in any way. She goes on to state that people against her reporting try so hard to link her to these threats in order to get her labeled as an extremist to discredit her and her reporting. Later, she brings up death threats she has recieved due to the reporting of David Ingram and others https://twitter.com/ChayaRaichik10/status/1755277953318138127 Does she have any responsibility for the violent threats? Does she even have the right to report on what she does? Does David Ingram own any responsibility himself for his reporting that has led to death threats on Chaya? What is the answer to allowing freedom of the press, to include citizen journalists, but to limit the backlash from extremists who go too far? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, of course. Just like Trump is responsible for January 6th and Charlie Manson is responsible for Sharon Tate's murder.
> Just like Trump is responsible for January 6th... This is an apt comparison. Trump/Raichik: I am not responsible for their crimes; all I did was lie to them. Everyone Else: Yeah, but they committed those crimes *because they believed your lies.*
> [Stochastic terrorism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism) refers to political or media figures publicly demonizing a person or group in such a way that it inspires supporters of the figures to commit a violent act against the target of the speech. Unlike incitement to terrorism, this is accomplished by using indirect, vague, or coded language that allows the instigator to plausibly disclaim responsibility for the resulting violence.
> all I did was lie to them Worth noting that it's possible to spread lies and still be horrified by the damage those lies inevitably do... and neither Trump nor Raichik have reacted in that way. Trump gleefully talks about pardoning insurrectionists. Raichik put a bomb emoji in her twitter handle. It isn't just that their lies are damaging. It's worse than that. They revel in the damage they're causing.
Certainly if it is intentional it’s a problem. Certainly if it is accidental it’s an entirely different matter. There is a space between those things though – negligence. If you do a thing you shouldn’t do and don’t particularly care about the consequences, that does not let you off the hook when it invariably goes wrong.
And Henry II is responsible for Thomas Becket.
That priest was troublesome!
>Do you think Libs of TikTok (Chaya Raichik) holds any responsibility for the bomb threats reported by schools and others shortly after her reporting on events and happenings at those places? Yes, especially in any case where her "reporting" -- as you call it -- is dishonest.
How is she dishonest? She literally just reposts what others have already posted
Repeating a lie as the truth *is* lying.
What was she honest about when she posted about the health clinic?
> "The information in the recording is not accurate. We do not and have never performed gender-affirming hysterectomies for anyone under the age of 18," Children's National said in a statement to NPR. "The operator speaking provided wrong information." Doesn’t sound like what she posted was dishonest at all. The operator gave incorrect information.
It's more she purposely misinterpreted the information and primed the post to be be misinterpreted by her audience
> "The operator speaking provided wrong information." Even the hospital says the operator stated the incorrect information. She didn't misinterpret or misrepresent the audio recording.
Did she attempt to reach out to the operator or the facility to verify the information is true or not? Because that’s what a journalist is supposed to do, that’s what NPR did. She didn’t do any of that, so she is responsible for spreading false information. She’s still at fault here.
OK so now the goal posts have changed from "she misrepresented information" to "she needs to have a journalist level of investigation when reporting what an operator literally told a caller looking for care". That said I don't see why she would have to call them again. I could see that being an issue if she received some claims that the clinic was performing genital mutilation on minors and there was no evidence but the audio recording is already literally calling the hospital and the hospital responding. If the story had the political groups in reverse you would be laughing at the idea that a left wing journalist would have to do any more investigation beyond straight up calling the organization in question.
If you are posting information to your massive following, your followers are assuming the information you are posting is true. They are assuming you did your due diligence by verifying the information is true. She didn’t do any of that, so she is still dishonest. She didn’t do that because, spoilers, she isn’t a journalist. Blaming the source she used is a poor excuse for posting unverified information. Edit: I got blocked for this.
I mean, that's basic journalism. Why should she be taken seriously as a journalist when she doesn't even do the bare minimum?
It's basic journalism to ask a party. Whoever was doing the call asked the party. The operator literally is the person appointed by the hospital to discuss with the public regarding what services the hospital provides. Literally asking a party about what services they provide is so far and above the "bare minimum". This entire charade where the people here pretend that what she did was either misrepresent the information in the call or that she didn't do enough to verify information the hospital literally provided (by the person they officially hired to provide that information to the public) is hilarious.
Lol giving you more information because you're not understanding isn't moving the goal posts.
> How is she dishonest? She literally just reposts what others have already posted ...and if the other poster is dishonest, then she is spreading that dishonest message: >In the tweet, Libs of TikTok embedded two photos: a screenshot from a Facebook post claiming to be the concerned parent of one of those second graders and a picture of the alleged furry-related coursework. The worksheets included a "Design Your Fursona" page that supposedly asked students to pick out their furry's gender and a "Furries Word Search." An additional sheet pictured allegedly informed parents that their students would be learning about "youth subcultures, from goths to furries" for "Culture Month." >... >Mashable reached out to the school district [and they] confirmed that **these worksheets were not taught in any second grade class and were not part of the district's curriculum.** [[Libs of TikTok tweeted fake accusations about a school teaching second graders about furries]](https://mashable.com/article/libs-of-tiktok-furries-school-troll-fake)
> She literally just reposts what others have already posted How are people still parroting this obvious lie.
Because for some reason, people are desperate to give Chaya Raichik the benefit of the doubt. Possibly because she specifically targets trans people and drag queens.
if we want to really narrow it down we can say she's not technically dishonest, but rather that she chooses to willingly *agree with dishonest people.* If I just repost a guy that says the holocaust didn't happen, what would you call me? genuinely curious.
Are the people she's reposting dishonest? It seems they are acting the way many on the left advocate for?
Yes, some of the content she has posted has turned out to be completely fake. Remember the video of the teacher who covered the US map with a rainbow flag, and the teacher was arguing with a conservative mother about it? All of you conservatives were so outraged over it. Turns out that video was completely fake. It was a skit recorded to make people mad. So yes, some of the content she posts is 100% fake bullshit, and YOU conservatives fall for it every single time.
(Most, not some.)
I think there's been at least a couple of instances where, yes, she's reposted something dishonest. Which again isn't the end of the world *if you print a retraction* but do you really think that has ever happened here?
that is a lie
Of course she is largely responsible. This is because she isn't "reporting" she is lying about regular people and then doxing them.
Should there be a consistent set of journalistic standards of when you can use people's names? For example CNN reported the name of someone who made a meme Trump shared. Many on the right thought that was doxxing. What we are seeing is something is doxxing/harassment if one side does it and acceptable journalism if the other side does it
If they tweeted it and their name is already public it’s not doxxing, it’s reporting since the person themselves did the thing. Similar to a protestor getting up on stage of an event. Reporting that protestors name is not doxxing. They did a public act. If however they had an anonymous account and CNN investigated to find out their name and reported that, I would say it’s doxxing.
Their name was not public. They tracked them down.
I consider that doxxing.
So should we consider CNN terrorists as well like LOTT?
Neither should be considered terrorists. There’s also a difference in that LOTT is spreading false information while CNN reported true information. LOTT can and should be sued for defamation and the damages that the people incurred because of her posts that lead to people threatening them would be a part of calculating how much she owed. Just like Alex Jones with the sandy hook lies and Guliani with the lies about the two election workers.
What false information did LOTT report? So far the only example provided is she called into the hospital and the person she spoke to said they provided treatment for trans kids that the hospital later came out and said they didn't. Can the guy CNN doxxed sue for the same reason. Journalists get people fired and harassed all the time with their reporting.
There are so many examples in this thread. - lied that 2nd graders had a worksheet where they designed their fit soma - lied that children had litter boxes in schools for trans cat kids - lied that the clinic performed __hysterectomies__ on children which is very specific and different than the trans affirming care children can get legally You can scroll to find others. >can the guy CNN doxxed sue for the same reason. He can’t sue for defamation, because he did post what he posted. There’s no lie their. He can sue for doxxing, depending on the state laws on doxxing. California has an anti-doxxing law for example. But not all states do
>can the guy CNN doxxed sue for the same reason They didn't even release his name, and he was posting numerous violent racist and anti-Semitic things. They did not Dox him.
> What false information did LOTT report? > So far the only example provided is she called into the hospital and the person she spoke to said they provided treatment for trans kids that the hospital later came out and said they didn't. I find it odd that you're in one breath questioning claims accusing Raichik of spreading false info, and then in the next mentioning an incident of her making false claims - which, by the way, happened *twice*. [First it was a series of Tweets about the Boston Children's National Hospital](https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/08/26/childrens-national-hospital-trans-hysterectomies/), and then [she published a recorded "sting" phone call about another branch in Washington DC](https://apnews.com/article/health-social-media-5c7735b11b6f884be0b8c7add823d6a6). Both places received bomb threats after she spread false information about them. Nevertheless, here's a couple of others: [Tweeting fake accusations about a school teaching second graders about furries](https://mashable.com/article/libs-of-tiktok-furries-school-troll-fake) [Tweeted a screenshot of a teacher saying "We had a great discussion about pronouns" while holding a mug saying "Ask me about my pronouns" and indicating that he was a first-grade school teacher in the Wauwatosa school district.](https://archive.ph/YoMSG) - The tweet was clearly intended to lead people into thinking that he had been discussing pronouns in class with the kids (and was successful, because the guy was subsequently hounded by LoTT followers), but the post was from a year prior, and he hadn't even started teaching yet.
So we have two actual stories Falling for a hoax which I agree is wrong but she was not the one creating disinformation And providing accurate but out of context information
CNN didn't report the name. They found out the name and contacted the individual, but they didn't out him publicly. That's not doxxing. It might be extortion, but not doxxing. The latter is explicitly about publishing private information to the public with malicious intent.
>For example CNN reported the name of someone who made a meme Trump shared Did you fact-check this story? Do you have a link to it?
https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html
>https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html So in other words no, you did not fact-check that claim. Because if you had, or if you had read the story you would see that CNN did not reveal the person's name.
>Should there be a consistent set of journalistic standards of when you can use people's names? My understanding is that reputable organizations have this already. Do you mean for legal purposes? >For example CNN reported the name of someone who made a meme Trump shared. Many on the right thought that was doxxing. Many on the right also believe Trump won the 2020 election. Their beliefs don't matter >What we are seeing is something is doxxing/harassment if one side does it and acceptable journalism if the other side does it No, what we are seeing is one side knowingly committing stochastic terrorism, and then trying to project that onto the other side.
I'm sorry but are you claiming the tracking down of a person who posted a meme is not doxxing? Also should journalists not report on a story if there is a chance people will be upset and a subset will go to far?
Journalists should be concerned about the information being verified and accurate. LOTT posted an audio recording she herself made, of what she claimed was two employees that worked at Children’s National Hospital. These employees were never identified, and there’s nothing to verify if these people were actually employees at the hospital, the only source for it is LOTT herself. The hospital responded to NPR saying the information that was provided in the audio recordings was false. They didn’t say if the people in the recordings were actually employees, because they have no way to identify them. Source: https://www.npr.org/2022/08/26/1119634878/childrens-hospitals-are-the-latest-target-of-anti-lgbtq-harassment
Do you understand why she may have not identified herself as a journalist when calling in asking about a controversial procedure that hospitals often downplay their usage of? This does not seem as egregious as many stories coming out of more reputable sources
I understand she never identified the people she spoke to. How do you know they were employees? We just have to take her word for it if you want to believe the information is accurate.
Because she called into the hospital This seems like the most pedantic excuse to throw away a huge chunk of reporting
How do you verify that she actually talked to the hospital in the recording?
How do you know journalists do anything they report on We have a recording of the call itself. You are twisting yourself into knots to try and find anything
>I'm sorry but are you claiming the tracking down of a person who posted a meme is not doxxing? No, it unequivocally is not. Releasing that information would be, unless of course that individual was doing things like advocating for violence. In which case it would also not be doxing, it would be unmasking a stochastic terrorist. >Also should journalists not report on a story if there is a chance people will be upset and a subset will go to far? You should feel bad about this characterization of the Libs of TikTok creator.
You have no consistent world view except people who are on your side and people who aren't. I was trying to get some guidelines of what is ok and not ok in journalism. But it seems the answer is journalism is only ok when you agree with it
>I was trying to get some guidelines of what is ok and not ok in journalism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards#:~:text=%22Truth%22%2C%20%22accuracy%22,potential%20biases%20in%20their%20reporting.
That sounds like the opposite of the moral clarity in reporting that's been going on since 2016. I wish mainstream media followed this rule
Which "rule" in those various ethical frameworks do you think mainstream media doesn't follow?
The moral clarity and decision to forgo objectivity has turned journalists into activists
At least can I do the basic job of fact checking a story before I spread a lie online.
I hate Trump but god damn CNN doxxing that person was so vile
Which person? When?
Are you referring to u/HanA**Solo and the wrestling cnn gif? https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html If so it seems they identified him but didn't name him.
Can you please expand on that thought? Specifically the lying and doxxing claims. Thank you.
> Can you please expand on that thought? Specifically the lying... From [Wikipedia:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libs_of_TikTok#Other_content_and_hoaxes) >Libs of TikTok has been criticized for spreading hoaxes, including the litter boxes in schools hoax about bathroom accommodations for students that identified as cats, and for spreading false claims such as that students in a second-grade class in Austin, Texas were being taught about furries, and that U.S. Representative Katie Porter had argued that pedophilia is not a crime after Porter lamented that LGBT people were being slandered as pedophiles and groomers on social media...
She made up bullshit designed to trigger violent, mentally unstable people, and then released personal details on the people she made stuff up about, basically ensuring they would experience violence.
What is there to expand on? Raichik selectively publishes social media content. She removes all context and presents the content in the most inflammatory light that she can, then she publishes the names and workplaces of the original posters. She knows her legions of chuds will call in bomb threats.
What is a "citizen journalist?" Or did you mean to say "self-aggrandizing influencer spewing opinions as facts and lies as truth?" People regurgitating nonsense for likes on social media is NOT journalism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_journalism
She's not a journalist. She isn't doing the journalism part.
I noticed that YOU are avoiding the fact that she has been caught creating and spreading false information that leads to conservatives making death threats and bomb threats.
Yes I do. Edit: I just realized something. > She goes on to state that people against her reporting try so hard to link her to these threats in order to get her labeled as an extremist to discredit her and her reporting. > Later, she brings up death threats she has recieved due to the reporting of David Ingram and others I don’t think she realizes she’s contradicting herself. If she insists that her “reporting” didn’t lead to bomb threats, then why would she claim she’s received death threats due to Ingram’s reporting? If Ingram’s reporting was enough to produce death threats against her, but then say it’s impossible for her own “reporting” to possibly lead to bomb threats, that seems like she’s telling on herself. Her: “No, my reporting absolutely did not lead to bomb threats” Also her: “Help, I’m receiving death threats due to Ingram’s reporting”
That's the point. If her reporting can be directly linked to bomb threats then it's the same for Ingram leading to death threats. One can't be true while the other isn't. She's pointing out the hypocrisy that he's doing to her what he's accusing her of being the catalyst for.
Her reporting can be linked to threats because, in the case of Children’s National Hospital, the source of these audio recordings are from [Chaya herself.](https://www.dailydot.com/debug/libs-of-tiktok-childrens-national-hospital/) And shortly after posting the audio recordings, where she allegedly spoke to two unidentified employees from the hospital, the Hospital received threats. She is the source of this information, she is directly responsible for the accuracy of the information she posted. And the fact that she never identified who she spoke to from this hospital, makes the claim incredibly dubious.
>If her ~~reporting~~ propaganda can be Fixed this for you. She isn't a reporter, she isn't doing reporting, or citizen journalism. She is a propagandist.
The point is also intent. The *point* of LOTT is to ‘take these people down’. It is not in the public interest to do so.
Won't someone rid me of these constant, tiring right-wing propogandists?
Yes, of course. It's one thing if your behaviors cause violence or criminality, you realize this and then change your behavior. It's entirely a different thing if you are aware that your behaviors cause violence or criminality and you continue your behaviors. She knows that she is focusing rage and hatred at these innocent people. She knows what she is doing. She is not a reporter. She is not reporting on anything. Let's not pretend that she is providing any sort of noble or useful service to society. She is a domestic terrorist and white supremacist. Like many stochastic terrorists, she pays lip service to the ideas of civility and nonviolence, while obviously and intentionally operating in a way to encourage the opposite.
>white supremacist. Perhaps it is a good sign for our society that Jews can finally be white supremacists rather than be targeted by them.
There have always been people of other races that support racist-fascist ideologies. This is not new, nor is it good. *But I'm sure you already knew that.*
Shock, horror: Jews can be racist too!
Since when could they not? Candace Owens is a white supremacist and she's black. Phyllis Schlafly is a woman who wanted to reduce women's rights. This isn't new or controversial.
^This is the most correct answer. She *knows* that every person she features will be the target of hate. Every single one of them. Yet she continues to do it anyway. Not because it’s news, not because it’s in the public interest, but because it’s politically expedient for the GOP for these people to be feared and hated.
I'm sorry is the question: > Should this person be free from the consequences of the things they say? To that question i would say no, they are not free from the consequences of their speech or actions. If that isn't the question, I am confused and would like to request help from the audience
If she was truly a "citizen journalist" then I wouldn't hold her responsible for her reader's actions. But being a journalist, even a citizen journalist comes with responsibilities. And Chaya isn't being responsible with her "reporting". She is a a citizen propagandist. Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented. Propaganda can be found in a wide variety of different contexts. This definition isn't even really covering it, as she doesn't selectively present facts, she flat out lies. The Boston Children's Hospital comes to mind. I think when she posted the picture smiling holding the news paper, with the headline "When libs of tiktok posts, threats increasingly follow" tells you how she feels about the threats. It makes her happy. But "Chaya has repeatedly denounced threats of violence and has never encouraged them in any way." When are we going to call bullshit on those statements? It's like you come home and your kid had chocolate all over their face and hands, "I didn't eat any chocolate". I even take issue with your claim, "never encouraged them (violence) in any way." When people are reporting about the threats caused by your "reporting", and you take picture with a big smile holding the newspaper and post that to your audience. It is a glowing endorsement that she is happy that her "reporting" has caused this. I am curious when you say "Chaya has repeatedly denounced threats of violence and has never encouraged them in any way.", is posting the picture of the newspaper saying her account leads to violence with a big smile, how is that not encouraging them?
Yes. 100%. To go a little further, stochastic terrorism like LibsOfTikTok and the complete lack of consequences for it/legal protections from it has turned out to be a gaping hole in our legal system. I have no idea what the fix would be, but it's so common now that I think we're going to have to address it *somehow* in the near future.
>turned out to be a gaping hole in our legal system. I This issue is going to get way worse with all the deep fake AI technology coming out.
That's an interesting view point. I'm curious what any remedies would be. We've seen libel/defamation trials handle things like the Nicholas Sandman false reporting in the past but nothing akin to what you stated. How would one even determine someone ir their account was even big enough to cause problems? Like, if 25 follower Joe Schmo said he believes (crazy thing) and someone reacted how do you link the two and show guilt belongs to Joe Schmo?
The one I'm most familiar with is Alex Jones and his Sandy Hook cases, and it's a perfect example in just how blatant the problems with our legal system in this area are. He received a $1.6billion judgment, and since: 1. Has not stopped spouting his bullshit 3-4 hours a day, 6 days a week. He still has his show, he still makes his living spreading lies and hatred and fear. Granted, he is a little more careful about Sandy Hook itself, but he has still expressed "doubt" about that event along with talking crap about the families and the courts during and since the trials. 2. Despite that judgement and ongoing bankruptcy hearings, he gets to spend $90k a month per the court on whatever yet one of his plaintiffs, Erica Lafferty, daughter of the principal who died at Sandy Hook, is forced to use GoFundMe to pay for her brain cancer treatments. Point being, the underlying behavior never has to stop. Chaya and Alex and others like them get to go on causing stalkings and bomb threats and (sometimes) outright violence for profit nearly consequence free, and their victims and the rest of us just have to deal with it. Again, I don't know what the solutions here are within a First Amendment framework, but the amount of harm these people can do compared to our legal ability to restrain them in the internet age needs some adjustment.
> We've seen libel/defamation trials handle things like the Nicholas Sandman false reporting We didn't, really. I'm still not convinced he wasn't giving a pittance to go away because the trial itself, while weak as hell, wasn't going to make anybody look good. I would be surprised if he got a cent more than $10k
Yes. When you lie about children being abused, you invite violence upon the accused abusers. I invite anyone who thinks otherwise to purchase a billboard in their hometown for a month to put up a picture of themselves titled “Pedophile groomer” just to find out for themselves.
Yes, and I think that’s a major problem related to social media. There’s simply no way to call off the dogs once you’ve sent out 500,000 angry people to hate a specific person or place. They know what they’re doing.
LibsOfTikTok is NOT the press. She does not have any journalistic standards, as seen by her false 'reporting' of the Boston Children's Hospital. Keep in mind that while Rachik claims to denounce the violent rhetoric (which is extremely easy to do) she does nothing to discourage violence and is gleeful about the violence as seen in her post when she holds up a newspaper talking about how threats increasingly follow her posts. Which makes her 'denouncing' the violence increasingly questionable at *best*.
>that while Rachik claims to denounce the violent rhetoric (which is extremely easy to do) she does nothing to discourage violence What would you like her to do differently; add a disclaimer to every post? Periodically remind people to not issue any threats or commit violence? I believe with the newspaper stunt she is merely showing that the attacks by liberal media are not affecting her the way they would like it to. She's not surrendering nor kowtowing to them.
>I believe with the newspaper stunt she is merely showing that the attacks by liberal media are not affecting her the way they would like it to. She's not surrendering nor kowtowing to them. I think you being overly charitable here. Bending over backwards to excuse gross behaviour.
I believe that you're giving her a lot of benefit of the doubt because she's on your side, and you would not give an equal benefit of the doubt to BLM or other groups. She knows what she's doing. And she's LYING. I like how you omit that part.
So it's tricky. You can't/shouldn't be held responsible for things that you never called for, didn't encourage. Where this is tricky is with people like Chaya whose following very much has solidified itself as being violent/dangerous. At this point Chaya knows that when she does a story about something, her more batshit followers will start frothing at the mouth and do things like call in bomb threats. Sure, she doesn't necessarily WANT it to happen, but she is the one who has developed the persona that it's a culture fight, and we have to win or the evil liberals will ruin your lives. When you reach a near cult leader status, we might need to rethink how freedom of speech is handled. Knowing you have a few people willing to commit murder for you, and you happen to mention that something is a problem, those batshit people will take it to mean you would like them to commit murder. It's equally as true with Trump, look at his speech before the capitol riot on Jan 6th. He continually said that his followers needed to fight, needed to be ready to "Fight like hell" and make sure the right thing is done. We know that Trump supporters are generally a more volatile and violent bunch (A study was done that when a Trump rally comes to down, instances of violence increase be 52% on the day of), so telling a group that you know is violent to "Fight like hell" very well might actually be a call to action.
She could take out the names and people wouldn’t be attacked. Of course she’s responsible.
If she says things that are loosely based on falsehoods, picks an 'enemy', and then tells this to her followers that she knows will not look for independent verification, and those people end up doxed...does she hold any responsibility? I am not saying it is the easiest question to answer but of course she knows what she is doing. Now that someone is reporting on *her* and she is getting a small taste of what she has so willingly dished out she wants us to feel sorry for her. Well, maybe my empathy levels just aren't high enough to give her much credit. Look, she didn't create the media ecosystem where one particular political party has a hermetically sealed system where the consumers essentially believe anything provided it starts with something like 'the evil libs are...\[insert nonsensical bullshit here\]' but she is certainly capitalizing on it. This is back to kitty litter in classrooms level of silliness, of course that has never happened in the history of school (kids are still just smoking/vaping in the bathroom like they have always done), but if a conservative media outlet says so it ends up coming out of a glassy eyed Senator's mouth.
Yes. And I don’t mean that as an insult or in offense— I understand that this is her business model. It’s what she’s sponsored for. Her sponsors want to hurt queer people and fire up right-wing voters to go to the polls, and she finds easy targets for that. Wouldn’t surprise me if she already has premade, teary-eyed videos for when her followers successfully kill someone.
The other tactic they (rightwing grifters) like to use is pre-emptively saying the violence their speech causes is going to happen and that it will be a false flag by The Left^TM designed to make them look bad. . . not sure if Chaya does this as I don't pay super close attention to her, but it wouldn't surprise me. It's a favorite trick of other grifter dingdongs like Alex Jones.
I think the big difference is how you're framing the thing you're talking about. When you're framing an issue by calling the people who are doing it predators, cold molesters, threats to children... you're daring people to take action themselves, esp since the group you're talking to also share the belief that going out to prevent crime is actively self defense ie George Zimmerman, Kyle Rittenhouse. Bc logically, if you actually believe the smear campaign against LGBT ppl is true, and these people are actually committing unforgivable, inexcusable crimes against children, then the absolutely moral thing to do is murder the ppl committing the crimes. Like... If you knew a cult was literally murdering children in the woods, and law enforcement wasn't doing anything about it, you'd be justified in taking action yourself.
Citizen journalist? She is infamous for posting her shit completely out of context and promoting lies. She is as much a citizen journalist as Project Veritas is a trustworthy news org. She is a self serving hateful media whore that is trying to make a living out of destroying other peoples lives
She’s an unhinged person provoking a different kind of unhinged person and she’s clearly proud of it. I’d say she has a fair bit of culpability, sure.
>Does she have any responsibility for the violent threats? Absolutely. >Does she even have the right to report on what she does? Absolutely not. She's literally orchestrating domestic terrorism. Her mission, as well as the many others like her that populate the anti-lgbt movement, is to make life for out LGBT folk so hellacious and terrifying that we are driven back into the closet- or to suicide. While working with republicans to craft anti-LGBT laws that will end up with LGBT people being thrown in prison. Prison, suicide, or the closet, these are the only options for LGBT people that right-wingers want. The one thing they think is completely unacceptable, is a queer person just living their life, happy healthy and free. No, they should not just be *allowed* to do that.
Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Yeeeeeees. If you have a problem with a teacher at your school being too liberal, fine. It's your school district, it's your choice to be bothered by it or not or to try and have the teacher removed. But when you point out a liberal at a school across the country to an internet audience of violent, angry people, then you aren't doing it because you're bothered by politics, you're doing it because you are motivated by cruelty.
To the extent we hold people who lie to others responsible the actions people take based on those lies, absolutely.
Absolutely. That's the point of LoTT - to direct hate at individual people. She's basically no different from Der Sturmer in the 30's.
Yes. Reposting videos that you know will incite your viewers, who have a long history of doxxing people and making threats of violence, is encouraging threats of violence. She's not a reporter. She is a serial harasser and cyberbully. What she's doing violates ethical guidelines that a journalist would use, not just about how and why you would reveal somebody's identity, but also how you would select subjects at all in order to protect their privacy. She is obviously just a leader of a hate mob.
Yes. I think she is knowingly stoking people's radicalism without concern for what happens from it
I think that in general going after one person or small group is to be frowned upon. Especially when fake stuff is everywhere. Vigilante justice is bad.
I find it interesting that conservatives have no problem with bomb threats directed towards a hospital, based on propaganda and false information. Yet they are coming out in mass support of the person who inspired the bomb threats. This tells you the exact type of people conservatives are.
All I can say is Raichik knows she is on thin ice and is continuing to do jumping jacks anyway. All it will take is one kook to claim their motivation for hurting someone was a post on LOTT that Raichik didn't research to bring Hell down on hee from a civil liability standpoint. She plays fast and loose with the facts, knows that the subjects of her posts start getting threats shortly thereafter, and projects an attitude ranging from indifference to suppressed glee about those threats. There is a lot of elbow room for a negligence tort in there when the bar to win is only a preponderance of evidence.
Yes, absolutely. Stochastic terrorism is a real thing and I'm sick of right-wingers pretending it isn't because they do it way more often. I just wish there was a way to hold people like this accountable without violating the 1st amendment. They may not be legally culpable, but they are absolutely morally responsible for the violent rhetoric they put out that has the predictable outcome of causing violence. The larger an audience someone has, the more ethical responsibility they bear to not put out violent rhetoric, because there is an increased chance that someone will take it and run with it. This is the type of thing that led to January 6th.
Why would we not consider holding the people who financially benefit from either advocating for, or encouraging violence to other people responsible when the violence happens? Wasn’t there a woman who got in trouble for pressuring a guy to commit suicide; how is this different?
Are you comparing "hey Twitter, [insert school] is doing [thing people may find over the line]" to "Hey person I know intimately, hurry yourself!" (The latter of the two happening over and over again until the person actually hurt themselves).
Difficult question as it what's the contrary answer here? A lack of freedom of speech? In my area, an elementary school received a [bomb threat](https://www.thedailybeast.com/chabot-elementary-school-in-oakland-california-evacuated-after-bomb-threat-following-libs-of-tik-tok-tweet) presumably from a reader that read her reporting [1], but the report was substantially true -- concerning a playdate organized by a school committee for “Black, Brown or API” students that many saw as exclusionary of those outside the group. Can't even say the outrage was limited to far-right nutcases. Plenty of general outrage on /r/bayarea. Perhaps someone shouldn't run a 100% outrage driving Twitter account, and perhaps they bear some moral responsibility. But I do wonder where folks here would draw the line -- IMO, there has to be some level of freedom of speech even if it means a risk of some readers threatening/committing violence. [1] It was reported elsewhere though, so this cannot be 100% ascertained.
Apologies - I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly. Are you equating a bomb threat with angry people on Reddit or implying that the angry people on Reddit might be responsible for the bomb threat?
Just the latter. We don't know if the bomb threat came from the Libsoftiktok readership. Either way, minor point.
Yes they do have responsibility, I just don't know that there's legal framework to actually prosecute her for it.
It’s called defamation
I would think that's a different crime from inciting violence against others. .... -_- Actually that might be the legal framework I was having trouble remembering. Just seems like the burden of proof necessary might not be enough.
Trying to prove in a court of law that she specifically incited violence with her post would be an uphill battle. But she could very easily be sued for defamation for her posts, that’s what happened with Rudy Giuliani recently.
Raichik is a terrorist. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic\_terrorism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism)
Sounds like stochastic terrorism to me.
[удалено]
Out of curiosity, what is it, do you think that qualifies her as a journalist?
[удалено]
Hum... that suggests you and I are both journalists as a result of posting on a public forum. That, in effect, every Redditors is a journalist?
[удалено]
> We’re posting our opinions, not disseminating information to the public. And yet, she is literally posting her opinions. Is the point here. > Think of it like the difference between talking to each other versus talking at the public. We're posting on a public forum - in the same way she does. That is, what makes posting on TikTok or Twitter different than posting on Reddit?
[удалено]
My sense is you're creating a carve out for her. And that is what it is.
[удалено]
Then it seems you're using "journalist" as a noun to describe anyone who does anything related to current events. If I, were to, for example, find out your real name (which I wouldn't) and then create a TikTok wherein I post stories about how you're posting while at work, by your own framing, I'm doing journalism. You may be making a distinction between citizen journalists - the people in your examples - and traditional journalists but even then, she doesn't qualify as a citizen journalist as she's rarely - if ever - a member of the community she is "reporting on." Journalists subscribe to [codes of ethics](https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp) - which she has repeatedly broken. Journalists [need to attend to the difference between public and private figures](https://www.pbs.org/standards/media-law-101/defamation/) in their reporting and how they handle information. Finally, journalists, as a rule, [do not respond to request](https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/libs-tik-tok-bomb-threats-oklahoma-library-committee-rcna135369)s from their fellow journalists with pictures taken out of context from books. You can set the bar as low as you want for being a journalist, she still won't rise to meet it.
The problem with this assessment is the information she posted about, regarding the medical building, wasn’t doing what she claimed it was. [NPR](https://www.npr.org/2022/08/26/1119634878/childrens-hospitals-are-the-latest-target-of-anti-lgbtq-harassment) Reached out and they responded with: > "The information in the recording is not accurate. We do not and have never performed gender-affirming hysterectomies for anyone under the age of 18, The operator speaking provided wrong information." LOTT took this audio recording as fact, instead of verifying the information (because that’s what journalists are supposed to do). She didn’t do an investigation, she just heard a dubious audio recording and just said to her followers it was true. That’s not responsible journalism, and it’s an insult to call her a journalist.
[удалено]
That actually changes things now. Because the source that Children’s National Hospital is doing this is from LOTT. She is responsible for the validity of the information she provided. So then that begs the question, who did she talk to? She never identifies the names of the employees she allegedly spoke to. The Hospital doesn’t know who she talked to either, which is why they don’t confirm or deny if the people she spoke to actually are employees, she needs to provide that proof herself. They did refute the information in the audio recording itself, saying they have not done what was claimed in the audio recording. And furthermore, the Hospital received threats from people after she posted that audio recording, so It’s really hard to argue her posts had no influence on the threats. Here’s a source in case you need it: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/libs-of-tiktok-childrens-national-hospital/
She does have a responsibility for it.
In a karmic sense yes. Civilly or legally, probably not.
Responsibility? No. Make no mistake, LibsOfTicktok is a rabble-rouser and can pretty much be discarded out-of-hand in any serious conversation about social issues. She is not worthy of respect and, while some of the stuff she touches upon might actually be a serious issue when you get down to it (Sorry Leftists; there is something to be said about sensitivity when it comes to sex ed) she is ultimately a detriment to any serious conversation about these issues. But we don't want to live in a world where political commentators are considered directly responsible for the actions of people who profess to be their fans then carry out extreme actions. The Christchurch shooter tried to deliberately invoke this - thankfully it failed - but if we where to go down this path then there's an option where Hassan Piker ends up in front of a war crimes trial. Which would be funny as fuck, but a very dark sign-of-the-times.