Posted on 11/26/2014 6:39:47 PM PST by Kaslin
The New York Times, whether consciously or not, has just endangered Darren Wilson’s life.
With tensions running high in Ferguson over the lack of an indictment for Wilson’s killing of Michael Brown, the paper has published the officer’s approximate address -- the street and town where he lives with his new wife, who also is named.
Given the racial animosity unleashed by Brown’s death, given the rioting and the looting and the stores that were set afire, how can a news organization make it easier for some crazy zealot to track down Wilson?
But there it is in the paper:
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Wilson should sue the pants off the NYT, the writer of the article and all its editors. It doesn’t matter if nothing happens to him. By publishing his address, they have endangered his life and caused incredible financial hardship.
Personally, I’d prefer to see those responsible in jail, not just sued or fined.
I second the motion.
Just because something is a fact or will sell papers does not mean it should be published.
Would you like the NYT to publish something that would put your life in danger? How about just your shopping list with Viagra and hemorrhoid medicine on it? Your bank balance? Your tax return?
In the past, we didn’t need so many laws because far more people had a conscience which prevented them from crossing the lines of decency. We have become a nation run by sociopaths who are now running the government as well as many corporations and “charitable organizations”.
Agree on all counts.
Listened to his two lawyers tonight. I know lawyers better than most and these two look pretty sharp!
“Sorry, but you are appealing to the emotions like the libtards, not to reason.”
No, every single thing I said was about reason. You are mistaking intangibles like integrity for emotions. That says something about you and why you have such a twisted outlook concerning responsibility and basic decency.
“But they are still reporting facts when it comes to the officer’s address.”
This is the second or third time you mentioned this and I have no idea why since no one is questioning that the facts are facts. The fact that Wilson’s address was known to the newspaper does not mean it was a responsible act for them to publish it. If I publish all of the military secrets of the United States - all factually correct - does that mean I have not done something wrong on some level? You would have to say I did nothing wrong because I published “facts”. Your view is unreasonable, unworkable, and stupid. Just because something is “factual” does not mean it should be published. Just because someone has the ability to do a thing doesn’t mean he should.
“All I see is your wanting for a business to not do what it wants/needs/pleases.”
So expecting a business to have some ethics is wrong because it violates what it “wants/needs/pleases”? Your view is entirely driven by emotions (”wants/needs/pleases”). My view is that the business should always use reason and think about what is right and not just act on every impulse. Your view is unreasonable and entirely driven by emotion.
“It is no different from libtards ganging up on a cake business owners for not servicing homosexual wedding.”
Then you really are driven purely by emotions because to equate those two things is logically impossible. The cake makers chose to have integrity (and stick to their Christian values) and not just make a buck. I expect the NYTimes to have integrity and not just push their left wing agenda or to do whatever strikes their fancy to make a buck. In other words, I am entirely consistent and expect the businesses to exercise reason. What you’re saying isn’t even remotely logical. It is unreasonable and can only be driven by emotion.
“You cannot silence a business/individual...”
Who’s trying to? Why do you consistently argue against things that no one is proposing? Is that reasonable or emotional? Clearly emotional.
“...for what that business/individual’s truthful action may or may not cause others from acting out against somebody else. Just smells so soviet-like.”
Really? I have no doubt that you have the legal right to be stupid. I just don’t see how anyone has the moral right to unnecessarily open others to possible harm when the right thing to do requires no effort.
“Lots of “ifs” there.”
Two. There were exactly two “ifs” there. Two. That’s not a lot. You must be looking at this very emotionally and seeing things that aren’t there.
“If Wilson is concerened about his safety, he should prepare for it.”
He did. That’s why he was keeping his location to himself. There was even an article just a few days ago about how he had mastered the art of disappearing. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ferguson-officer-darren-wilson-20141122-story.html#page=1
“It is his responsibility to his wife and baby, not the slimes’.”
No business has the moral right to needlessly endanger a baby, someone’s wife or an innocent man. All people have a moral obligation to do what is right to protect the innocent.
“You are mistaking intangibles like integrity for emotions. That says something about you and why you have such a twisted outlook concerning responsibility and basic decency.”
And this isn’t an appeal to emotions?
“If I publish all of the military secrets of the United States - all factually correct - does that mean I have not done something wrong on some level? You would have to say I did nothing wrong because I published “facts”.”
Publishing your country’s military secrets is treason, so I would say it is “wrong”. Publishing a cop’s address is NOT treason or any sort of crime. You may not like it, but that does not make it a crime.
“Your view is unreasonable, unworkable, and stupid. Just because something is “factual” does not mean it should be published. Just because someone has the ability to do a thing doesn’t mean he should.”
Again, full of emotion appeals. Look, if I ran the slimes, I would not publish it. But what slimes does is their prerogative.
Rest of your post is just going on and on. Have a good night.
The story’s editor is also at fault for either not killing the article or editing it.
The fact is, all articles before they are allowed to be printed must be edited, unless journalism has changed since I knew it,
But surely you agree they are vile for exercising that “right” in this manner. Right?
Good job!
Their addresses are all over FaceBook which has more readers than the NYSlimes.
:)
They’ll be all over twitter in a minute here.
SMILING!
Excellent.
Thank you!
This needs a bunch of bttt’s.
Those nasty liberals didn’t think this one through. If Officer Wilson’s address if public information to be shared, so is theirs.
For sure!
Absolutely!
And your address is?
Noticed that a conservative twitter user has convinced Ms. Bosman to redact Officer Wilson’s address from the NYT website. Damage has already been done though.
I stand corrected.... It is still there, though she removed an image.
...Their job is to, hopefully, make money for their shareholders by, again hopefully, reporting on facts...
As a human being their JOB above all else is to act responsibly. It is of no benefit to anyone to print in a newspaper the address of a person who’s life has been threatened.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.