3 ms·
"lots of people would like to remain anonymous. would you like to live in a world where the New York times lets powerful people who are doing awful, unethical t
by mudita 6y ago
"lots of people would like to remain anonymous. would you like to live in a world where the New York times lets powerful people who are doing awful, unethical things remain anonymous as they would like to?"
That's a false dichotomy. You can respect a wish for anonymity in cases like Scott's without giving up the possibility of making the names of other people public, when there's a good reason for it.
- Aqueous 6y agowhat are the 'good reasons' exactly, though? Is it whether we like them or not? And should the NY Times be in the business of adjudicating that?
- mudita 6y agoIn principle, I really like the legal situation in Germany, where I live: There’s a fundamental right to “informational self-determination”, but this right is not absolute. Journalists have the duty to weigh the freedom of the press and especially the "interests of the public to be informed" against this “personality right”. In the end, a person like Scott would be able to sue the newspaper, if he thinks that in their case the interests of the public did not outweigh his personality rights and a court would decide. (Sorry, this post contains a lot of ad hoc translations of German legal terms, I hope it's still understandable and more or less correct English)