3 ms·

That's fine - but I 100% think the NYT should be allowed to write a article about Kendrick Lamar Duckworth tomorrow where they use his full name - even if he as

That's fine - but I 100% think the NYT should be allowed to write a article about Kendrick Lamar Duckworth tomorrow where they use his full name - even if he asked them not to. It isn't his decision. Do you think the NYT would be wrong to publish his last name just because he asked them not to use it? SSC yelling "I am not a public figure" has no meaning. He doesn't get to decide if he is a public figure or not. And it doesn't make any sense for public figures to be the arbiters of what facets of their life is public and which are not. He has a blog with hundreds-of-thousands of readers. I think that makes him a public figure. This probably comes up all the time (at least in the not-to-distant-past) with actors and actresses not wanting their real age reported. They could claim a right to privacy or say that while they are an artist - they aren't a public figure - but it isn't there right to make up the rules for public figure. The news media has an obligation to its readers to report and the concerns of the subject aren't the newspaper's job to worry about.

ALittleLight 6y ago
I want to notice a small change in the goalposts. In your previous comment you wrote "If I go to any NY Times article there are always full names attached" and now we seem to be discussing whether the NYT has the right to publish full names against the wishes of the named person. It's an important shift because we're acknowledging the NYT makes this choice and chose to use Scott's full name over his objection, not because of any policy, but just because they wanted to. If Kendrick Lamar said "It would be better for my image if I was written about using my first and middle name and without my last name" because that's more consistent or he thinks "Duckworth" doesn't conjure the image of a rapper - then I'd say that the NYT should respect that. His concerns make sense and he's much more widely known by Kendrick Lamar than by Duckworth. There's no reason to include his last name, you don't know more or less about him by knowing it or not. It's a balancing act between no benefit on one side and some harm on the other. Seems clear what to do. I think the NYT has a legal right to publish full names if they want but I think it's a moral flaw that they do so. Same way, maybe it would be legal for you to walk up to a little girl and tell her she's ugly. That's not a crime, but it says something negative about you. You're doing harm for no reason or benefit.
- handmodel 6y ago
  I really don't think that the NYT should be concerned about doing brand management for a rapper. Who cares if he doesn't want people to know his real name or if a rapper didn't want the public to know he grew up wealthy or something? The NYT doesn't need to go around looking for fight but if it thinks it is relevant they can and should publish these details.
  - ALittleLight 6y ago
    But why? There's no benefit to naming Lamar and there's some cost, both to Lamar, and to the NYT in terms of offending people they may want to talk to. "Who cares" when asking about arbitrary decisions that hurt people is sociopathic. Obviously the people getting hurt care and the people who care about the needlessly hurt people care.

ALittleLight 6y ago

I want to notice a small change in the goalposts. In your previous comment you wrote "If I go to any NY Times article there are always full names attached" and now we seem to be discussing whether the NYT has the right to publish full names against the wishes of the named person. It's an important shift because we're acknowledging the NYT makes this choice and chose to use Scott's full name over his objection, not because of any policy, but just because they wanted to. If Kendrick Lamar said "It would be better for my image if I was written about using my first and middle name and without my last name" because that's more consistent or he thinks "Duckworth" doesn't conjure the image of a rapper - then I'd say that the NYT should respect that. His concerns make sense and he's much more widely known by Kendrick Lamar than by Duckworth. There's no reason to include his last name, you don't know more or less about him by knowing it or not. It's a balancing act between no benefit on one side and some harm on the other. Seems clear what to do. I think the NYT has a legal right to publish full names if they want but I think it's a moral flaw that they do so. Same way, maybe it would be legal for you to walk up to a little girl and tell her she's ugly. That's not a crime, but it says something negative about you. You're doing harm for no reason or benefit.

handmodel 6y ago
I really don't think that the NYT should be concerned about doing brand management for a rapper. Who cares if he doesn't want people to know his real name or if a rapper didn't want the public to know he grew up wealthy or something? The NYT doesn't need to go around looking for fight but if it thinks it is relevant they can and should publish these details.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  But why? There's no benefit to naming Lamar and there's some cost, both to Lamar, and to the NYT in terms of offending people they may want to talk to. "Who cares" when asking about arbitrary decisions that hurt people is sociopathic. Obviously the people getting hurt care and the people who care about the needlessly hurt people care.