So in other words, you don't consider it rape because ISIS don't consider it rape.

You should read the article, not just the headline. It discusses the supposed theological justifications for sexual slavery (rape).

I didn't post a Fox article. If you have an issue with the content of the CNN article, then please explain it.

The fact that there has been mass systematic sexual slavery - rape - under ISIS is well documented and ISIS has published its own material in Dabiq justifying its use of rape as a weapon of war and as their supposed right under Sharia.

(- The AV Club)

Well that's just like your opinion, man.

Yes, though not everyone would feel that way. The difference between me and the person we're talking about though, the difference which you're pretending not to see because it undermines your argument, is that he posted a lot of racist and antisemitic shit before Trump brought him to national attention, and that's why…

Not "bad"; noteworthy. And again, you're talking about a threat to do journalism. if you're shocked by the thought of journalists doing journalism there's no point continuing to have this conversation.

Why would that alter the newsworthiness of his real-life identity, when it was already determined not to be newsworthy?

I know, I know, it's serious.

I think a case could have been made for doing so. He was, after all, posting in a public forum and is (or was) identifiable by information he himself made public. But I also think there's a case for not doing so.

Yes. In all honesty, I don't see why it wouldn't be.

If you don't think the President retweeting someone who calls black people the n word and calls for Muslims to be killed is newsworthy then there's probably little point in us continuing to discuss this.

Presumably because their reasoning for not reporting the identity bears some relevance to the story as they see it. It isn't a "weird threat" not to rule out reporting the name in future if the person behind it continues to behave in a newsworthy way.

Ah no worries, sorry for my snippy response!

I'm going to jump out of the window if this is true.

They. Didn't. Name. Him.

Ok, I'm going to have to call you out on this one. If the original tweet was a non-story, why was CNN and the rest of the media so pissed off?

In other words, don't report the situation at all and leave the troll to stew.

Making the news contingent on events crosses the line?