system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: CNN identifying HanAholeSolo is not an infringement of free speech nor was it a threat

The first amendment is meant to protect you from government retaliation not from privately owned companies or individuals and CNN is not a government entity, so them identifying a person who has taken to attacking their business online is not a violation of the first amendment. HanAholeSolo posted the gif and other hateful things in a public forum and they are being retweeted at the highest levels of American government, so it is not some little group that had shared it between friends and was never meant to go public.   
  
Claiming that you should have absolute anonymity on the internet dissolves anyone of any responsibility for their actions and speech. HanAholeSolo put those hateful comments and gifs out for the world to see and only did so because they thought they would remain anonymous and not face any social consequences for their actions. Basically CNN is a private company being attacked by a citizen who thought he could avoid social consequences and now that this person may have to face actual consequences for their action everyone is in an uproar like this guy should have absolute anonymity on reddit.   
  
As for it being a threat, how is it a threat when it's a social issue not a criminal one? I don't see reddit get in an uproar when the release the names of people suspected of certain crimes before a trial even happens, do those people not face social consequences such as harassment even after being cleared of wrongdoing? yes, they do. This is like recognizing your coworker online calling someone racial slurs and then telling him you saw him and if he acts out again you will bring his racial issues up in a public setting to make sure HR knows. Clearly the person posting these things did not think of the social implication, or they did and thought they could get away with it. So again claiming that individual deserves absolute anonymity dissolves them of having any kind of social responsibility for their speech and actions when posting in a public forum. CNN did not use any nefarious method to locate his ID they used publicly posted information from the account. Why should this individual be given extra care to avoid them having to take responsibility for their beliefs and actions?  
   
EDIT: Okay yes I understand it is "technically" a threat, but so would being an adult and going to a coworker and saying "I find XYZ behavior inappropriate and I would like you to change this or I will have to take this matter to HR", while technically a threat it is not inappropriate. The individual posted personal identifying info on a public forum where they assumed they were anonymous, they are not and therefor have to face the social consequences of their actions and CNN is not in the wrong to bring this to their attention and ask them to stop before they have to take it public.  
  
EDIT 2: I am going to work, but will respond as much as possible, thanks all for the discussion.
gpt
I agree with you that it is not an infringment of free speech - CNN is not a government entity and thus can not violate someone's 1st Amendment rights.

That said, the definition of a threat is:

>a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.

CNN said that they would release his name (intention to inflict damage) because of actions this person took against the CNN brand (in retribution for something done).

It was most certainly a threat.