It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Kettu
originally posted by: MysticPearl
a reply to: Sillyolme
This is fascism.
What's odd is that The_Donald moderators banned the user after his "apology".
So you see no wrong in a Corporate news organisation threatening a private citizen with exposure over a meme?
originally posted by: DJW001
The First Amendment protects his right to create the meme; it also protects CNN's right to publish the author's name. The moral of the story is: do not say or do something spiteful if you are afraid of the consequences. Anonymity no longer exists.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth
So you see no wrong in a Corporate news organisation threatening a private citizen with exposure over a meme?
The First Amendment protects his right to create the meme; it also protects CNN's right to publish the author's name. The moral of the story is: do not say or do something spiteful if you are afraid of the consequences. Anonymity no longer exists.
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth
So you see no wrong in a Corporate news organisation threatening a private citizen with exposure over a meme?
The First Amendment protects his right to create the meme; it also protects CNN's right to publish the author's name. The moral of the story is: do not say or do something spiteful if you are afraid of the consequences. Anonymity no longer exists.
They did not publish his name - they threatened him instead in order to control his behaviour.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Dfairlite
You don't see the difference between a powerful man locking the door, asking you if you like your job, then making it clear you must put loyalty over honesty and do something illegal for him, and a media outlet taking perfectly legal measures against someone who is trying to damage their credibility, thus potentially robbing them of income?
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth
So you see no wrong in a Corporate news organisation threatening a private citizen with exposure over a meme?
The First Amendment protects his right to create the meme; it also protects CNN's right to publish the author's name. The moral of the story is: do not say or do something spiteful if you are afraid of the consequences. Anonymity no longer exists.
They did not publish his name - they threatened him instead in order to control his behaviour.
Just like Trump did to Comey. Why is one okay and the other not?
CNN does not have the constitutional power to tell a random kid what to do or say.
originally posted by: UKTruth