Not revealing his ID now is not that same as saying they never would in the future.

Publish the apology and moved the fuck on, like grownups.

Thus making revealing his ID contingent on behavior. Which is a threat.

Doing journalism would have been publishing his name when they first learned it.

"If you don't do X, I'm doing Y" is a threat. There's no way to spin your way out of that.

No, because its making public what he had a reasonable expectation of privacy for doing.

Why is difficulty a factor in determining right or wrong?

Exactly.

Your conflating two different things.

But the guy hasn't done anything criminal. He's "attacked" CNN (arguable, though tenuous).

Thanks for the grammar critique.

Well, it motivates him to declare bankruptcy and/or accuse them of being shoddy workers.

Yes, but they should only be doing one of them.

No, restraint would be not publishing the name. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with them publishing the guy's name either, if they'd done it so immediately.

Okay, let's say that CNN finds out something troubling about ___insert person you don't like here___. Is it okay for them to demand they change their stance on an issue if they don't publish what they've learned?

Yes. You're most definitely threatening me. It can be a great deal and still be a threat.

One other thought— if internet anonymity is going to be a thing, then we have to accept that people posing as things that they are not is also possible.

Its worse than that. It sets up a system where journalists can demand behavior or conditions favorable to them in return for silence on information they've learned.

Not a whit. CNN should be taking that up with Trump, not this guy.

He's worried it would destroy his life. Its immaterial what YOU think it would do (and its actually clear you think it would be damaging, since you say he should "be honest about who he is"). They're threatening with something he's afraid of to him to keep him (and by extension, others) in line with behavior they…