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

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.