thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 35,094
I think the conservative trolls on the internet don't like this because they would like to stay anonymous as well.
I'm not sure what you're talking about at this point, so let's start over.
I asked the following question:
You answered in the negative, and then I asked you this follow-up question:
An answer would be appreciated, please.
Luckily for you then that this person is still free to express himself.
Extortion? That's a criminal offense. I haven't actually been following the story that closely. Have charges been filed yet?
We will let the prosecutors do their work.
Do do you think that all crimes are prosecuted?
I think the conservative trolls on the internet don't like this because they would like to stay anonymous as well.
What prosecutors are working on this? When do you anticipate charges will be filed?
Usually the ones committed right out in the open are. Is there a reason this blatant example of what you call extortion wouldn't be prosecuted?
Perhaps they feel that only they should have free speech? They don't seem to think that CNN should have free speech.
Perhaps they feel that only they should have free speech? They don't seem to think that CNN should have free speech.
Good thing that billion dollar multi platform media conglomerates have such ardent defenders.
![]()
Not at all. It's just that the number of trolls vastly exceeds the number who have been recirculated by WH officials and staff. Pick a troll at random, they probably aren't that sort of newsworthy.Why not? Is there a law or something?
Either that or they struck a deal: You refrain from X, we refrain from Y.
Not to mention the human beings who work for them, even the Jews who HanA**holeSolo doxed.Good thing that billion dollar multi platform media conglomerates have such ardent defenders.
Not at all. It's just that the number of trolls vastly exceeds the number who have been recirculated by WH officials and staff. Pick a troll at random, they probably aren't that sort of newsworthy.
xjx388 said:Up until CNN made a statement saying they aren't identifying him unless he decides to continue his nasty ways.
In point of fact, they didn't make that statement.
You are not charitably or accurately reading what they actually wrote. What they did was avoid publicly committing to actively preserving his anonymity. You may well believe they have an ethical obligation to help him remain anonymous, but they obviously do not agree.
From the CNN article:
CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.
CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.
This is a very clear threat to dox unless the Redditor complies and submits.
CNN said:After posting his apology, "HanA**holeSolo" called CNN's KFile and confirmed his identity. In the interview, "HanA**holeSolo" sounded nervous about his identity being revealed and asked to not be named out of fear for his personal safety and for the public embarrassment it would bring to him and his family.
You do think that all crimes are prosecuted?
Huh, which prosecutors do you think have jurisdiction?
Do you think that there is any reason this blatant example of extortion would not be prosecuted?
Can we all get a cite for the criminal statute you are relying on?
Sure, but if Trump picked a troll at random, then it's still a random troll, and the fact that that specific troll was unlikely to be picked randomly doesn't matter after the fact. If you roll a 1,000,000 sided die, whatever it lands on will be very unlikely, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a random roll.
Good thing that billion dollar multi platform media conglomerates have such ardent defenders.
Sounds to me like a pretty straightforward reading of their statement.
Another, more straightforward way would have been to post their actual statement.