4 ms·

The information is already public - why distribute it widely when there are potential negative consequences for the named in doing so? Are you the judge to rul

• CPLX 6y ago
  > Are you the judge to rule whether the individual has lost his right of privacy? I mean, there is an actual judge. This is a major legal case, and they've placed the info in the public record. The judge has in fact made a ruling. I'm not saying it's always a perfect system, but it's definitely a very well established system in the U.S. that all court proceedings are very public. It's one of the core founding principles of the judicial branch, and it's also been a staple of American journalism for hundreds of years. I personally think the European approach is much better on this specific issue, and that right to be forgotten laws and similar are justified. But the reason I mentioned it in this context is that the idea that journalists naming people who are clearly notable in the context of reporting news only seems to generate a critical response when it's someone that the average HN reader identifies with.
• sillysaurusx 6y ago
  (Your last sentence is a fine point, but they aren't pseudonymous. Their bio contains personally identifiable information.)