2 ms·

It seems strange to me that a New York based journalism institution didn't use the plaintiffs real names. On what basis do you suppose they decided to honor EU/

• bazzargh 9y ago
  On the basis that the information simply isn't available, it doesn't appear in any court publications. eg a recent UK Supreme Court case was: 'R (on the application of HC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and others (Respondents)' HC here has her name witheld (R is 'Regina', ie the Crown). Exactly the same thing happens in the US; eg in Roe v Wade, 'Roe' (a Jane Doe plaintiff) didn't have her identity revealed until she herself told the press who she was afterwards; the papers still use the pseudonym to describe it. If the identity is known by other means the US press has been known to publish - eg in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PJS_v_News_Group_Newspapers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PJS_v_News_Group_Newspapers, it was a celebrity case and the story had been shopped round various papers, with the result that US tabloids got the story and knew it would sell copies. In this case there's no likely source for a leak.
• IAmEveryone 9y ago
  The NYT is just practicing what Google is claiming to be: journalism. The petitioners' names are irrelevant to the story. Yet publishing them would obviously harm them. It's an easy call. Good journalists don't operate by a fundamentalist "information wants to be free" paradigm. They don't print gruesome photos of car accidents, lists of who is gay or not, leaked names of FBI informants in the mafia, or the Secretary of State's private phone number.