Free speech applies to the government. It doesn't mean that there can't be any consequences for what you say from others.

https://www.justice.gov/crt/conspiracy-against-rights those consequences can not limit a person's right by that law that i linked. They made that law to protect people's rights against other people . Those consequences can not be illegal.

Very true, but it's not illegal to mention the name of a person you've spoken to in this case. CNN is in the clear.

Even if its legal to release his personal info using that as leverage is blackmail. there are numerous lawyers willing to take this persons case. Cnn used intimidation to infringe on his free speech rights. CNN also doxed him which is illegal. i find out what is going on by REAL lawyers online your not a lawyer and Cnn broke a federal law the conspiracy against rights and the new York coercion law as well as a Georgia law. http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/05/ted-cruz-cnn-may-broken-law-doxxing-threat/ you can not stop people from free speech if that free speech is legal by threats or intimidation. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said CNN may have broken the law in threatening to publicly expose the person who created a GIF of Donald Trump appearing to beat up a man with a CNN logo for a head. After the president tweeted out the GIF last week, CNN has been on a warpath to hunt down the creator and make him pay. In an article published Tuesday, entitled “How CNN found the Reddit user behind the Trump wrestling GIF,” Andrew Kaczynski had this to say about why the network decided to keep his identity under wraps. look at the link . https://www.justice.gov/crt/conspiracy-against-rights the only people's opinions that matter in this case are lawyers because they are trained in the law and know the law. Cnn broke a georgia law, as well as a federal and new York law.

But I am an actual lawyer. Doxing is not at all illegal. The law your article refers to only applies when it is done to "unlawfully obtain property" from a person, which they clearly weren't doing. CNN also already released a sound explanation of why they used that poor wording and the victim himself has said there's been no extortion or threats of any kind, so that's probably out of the question. So, as an actual lawyer, I cannot imagine them guilty of the conspiracy crime and getting them on doxing or blackmail is incredibly unlikely. I'm not defending CNN because they were clearly in the wrong, but the criminal case against them is weak and in shambles.

There is a youtuber i watch who used to be prosecutor his youtube channel is Lionel Nation and he thinks they di break the law but thinks Cnn will get off because of who they are. I read doxing is only illegal if they obtain the information from sources other then social media. "In short, no. So long as the information gathered is from publicly accessed accounts (like a Facebook page or any other social media account not in ‘private’ mode) and what is published is used within ethical standards. However, those doxing with a more insidious agenda (such as using personal information to blackmail someone) could be committing a crime if their motives are proven." Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/05/what-is-doxing-and-is-it-illegal-heres-how-people-dox-and-what-you-can-do-to-avoid-it-6757123/#ixzz4mAF89NMT The paragraph from a other website I posted here said that using personal information to blackmail someone could be committing a crime. did Cnn not put a condition on releasing his information . They said in veiled threat that he appoligized and promised to never do it again. They also said that this could set a example for others. so its perfectly fine for a media company to stop the speech of a individual that they tracked down ? Do you see the problem with this that they could go after 1000's of people . do you have a link of cnn's explanation Their poor wording? I am going to try and find it. is there some open to interpretation here on this case? what if you obtained someone's info through their ISP ?

Lionel Nation? The guy whose opinions are so discredited that he only makes TV on Russia Today? Who genuinely believes that [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WQ5SXEAA0U]aliens have built superstructures on earth that are kept hidden by the government?[/url] That there are [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpUh9FIo1Uw]advanced aliens living among us who control the pope?[/url] That [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDIYC0TeCjI]the attack on 9/11[/url] was all a conspiracy? The guy who has dozens and dozens of videos dating back well before this event dedicated to attacking the mainstream media and supporting anything related to Trump? Please don't tell me you think this actual nutjob with an insane amount of bias is anywhere near a reliable source on this. CNN has explained that the comment meant that there was no deal made. As in, we did not sign any contract or agreement that we would keep this person's identity a secret in exchange for anything. Or we did not put ourselves or the other person in a position where we or them were coerced into signing anything we could not get out of. Whether or not you believe that is what they actually meant, it's what their official statement says and what the author of the article tweeted almost immediately after the fact. Add onto that the victim confirmed there was no coercion of any kind, and you should understand why this is never going to amount to blackmail in court. Access to IP and subscriber data from ISP's is reserved for law enforcement and the likes. Citizens and normal business do not normally have access to it. Everything that CNN did to obtain his information is legal. They found the guy's online name and Reddit account, and it turns out he made enough posts about his personal life on freely accessible online forums that they were able to figure out his name and contact him through Facebook. As I already said, CNN was wrong. Them going after this person was petty and stupid. They shouldn't have done this and while the outrage seems excessive and somewhat misguided (their explanation does make some sense), they should have expected consequences like this. But were their actions illegal? I doubt it.

I love russia today. its the most unbiased media. or at least the most unbaised that i can watch in the states.

Come on man. It's widely seen as a Russian propaganda outlet. They're notorious for spreading false information, conspiracy theories and having an extreme pro-Russia and conservative slant. http://archives.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rt-news/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Propaganda_claims_and_related_issues "Funded by the Russian government. The Kremlin's propaganda machine known as Putin's Weapon of Mass Deception. Highly biased toward Russia and occasionally runs Pro-state conspiracy stories. RT has been frequently described as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy. RT has also been accused of spreading disinformation by news reporters, including some former RT reporters, The United Kingdom media regulator, Ofcom, has repeatedly found RT to have breached rules on impartiality, and of broadcasting "materially misleading" content." You're making it very hard to have a serious discussion when you're starting this off by saying Russia Today, an outlet funded and directed by the Russian government that has been fined around the world for being partial and deliberately spreading misinformation and demonstrable lies, as "the most unbiased media".

First off im new to Lionel nation. I don't believe in all that alien shit. i started watching him when he commeneted on the michelle carter case . He talks about his wacky vegatarian diet which is very unhealthy. I was only interested in his legal analysis and his legal analysis only. IF you dont think something funny happened in 9/11 i dont know what to tell you. there are scientists and engineers that have commented on how funny a building can fall free fall. Not to mention no plane hit building 7 and it was demolition. there is speculation that they found this guy through time warner . Cnn is owned by time warner and some speculate that Cnn obtained his info through time warner. This might be considered new ground since Cnn is going after a private citizen in my personal opinion deserves his anonymity . your not commenting on the potential that CNN might have went after the wrong person. meaning he did not make the meme he only re posted it.

You obviously have not read the first amendment let alone the Bill of Rights. I strongly suggest doing so.

You might want to take your own advice. The first amendment: "[b]Congress[/b] shall make [b]no law[/b] respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or [b]abridging the freedom of speech[/b], or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" Please tell me how this text, which literally says nothing other than that Congress cannot make laws restricting free speech, somehow means that others can't assign consequences to your actions.

You're right it literally says nothing about that but it doesn't give anyone the right to silence anyone else. That's what I'm getting at. CNN doesn't get to make up rules and enforce them with intimidation. If this is allowed then any company or group can dictate what we can and cannot say.

How are they silencing him? You have an incredibly misguided understanding of the first amendment. They're not stopping him from speaking. They're just saying that they can make his name public if he does. The first amendment reserves your right to speak. It does not reserve you from being held accountable for the things you say. If a person posts racist things on his Facebook and his company fires him because they don't want to be associated with him, they're not doing anything wrong nor are they infringing on his first amendment rights. If a person says sexist things and he's then declined from speaking at a conference on feminism, he's not being censored. So no, you've got this very wrong. They can't physically stop you from speaking. But that doesn't mean they have to give you a platform to speak on or can't react negatively when you say dumb things. Please read up on this and educate yourself a little.