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 ...
That's a good one!
Well, we know who the NYT works for, don’t we???
SOS.
Folks be careful ... unless you’re a “next door neighbor of these two despicable slimeballs” ... and IF you use the internet (FCC controlled) or the U.S. Postal Service (Fed controlled) ... you’ll be potentially be proscecuteable by the Justic Department (the SOB Eric Holder) for using “federal assets” to quote, unquote “intimidate” these two jerks.
Yes we do
If Wilson is gone, Holder and Obama’s sticky wicket they made for themselves goes away. With Wilson around, they can’t shut the mob off, for they “Built That”.
Looks like the NYT will be houseshopping next week, for Mr. Wilson’s new, new home, furnishings included.
..........this should just about push the NYT over the bankruptcy edge if anything happens to Wilson. This could be the most monumentally dumb stunt in the history of journalism.
Heretofore I just thought the NYT hierarchy was a bunch of liberals being liberals. But, that’s not the extent of it. These people truly are over the top DUMB! I mean why risk the entire remaining equity of their employer (ergo their own job!) by publishing these addresses. What would EVER be the gain under ANY set of circumstances?
As much as I hate the newyork slimes, they have the RIGHT to publish whatever the heck they want (within legal means), all protected by the 1st Amendment. Publishing (correct) address is neither lying nor slanderous. Flame away!
Let’s find out where the author of who leaked this info lives and post it everywhere on the Internet.
Turnabout is fair play in this scenario methinks.
I’m not suggesting anyone does anything with that info other than maybe let them know it really isn’t cool to post personal info to the world about people who are just trying to live their lives in peace.
Maybe some roses on their doorstep will let them know some thing are simply out of bounds. Boundaries need to be respected.
It is referred to in other thread about authors’ addresses.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3231338/posts
You're an *****
“Publishing (correct) address is neither lying nor slanderous.”
Is anyone saying it is “lying” or “slanderous”?
“Flame away!”
You don’t see a problem with a newspaper publishing info which unnecessarily endangers an innocent family’s existence?
They knew what they were doing...
“You don’t see a problem with a newspaper publishing info which unnecessarily endangers an innocent family’s existence?”
Blame the people who misuse the information. Regardless, why should a business be blamed for actions of criminals? Should Yellow Book be sued for publishing my phone numbers. Spammers might harass me.
Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right.
I see your point but some lines should just not be crossed.
Yes?
“Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right.
I see your point but some lines should just not be crossed.
Yes?”
It is like complaining that the pigs are not following proper eating etiquette.
Is there anything right coming from the slimes?
“Blame the people who misuse the information.”
I would. But shouldn’t the newspaper also have the integrity to protect innocent lives?
“Regardless, why should a business be blamed for actions of criminals?”
I wouldn’t blame them for the actions of criminals. I would blame them for their own actions, however. Can’t you see the difference?
“Should Yellow Book be sued for publishing my phone numbers.”
Yes - if you have an unlisted number and you’ve been threatened with death.
“Spammers might harass me.”
But they won’t murder you, your wife and your baby. In this situation we are dealing with people who WILL.
I understand you have your own point of view. Fine. But you’re not making any sense in your argument. Having a business does not mean that the business should be run without regard for the safety of innocent people. Even if it is criminals who murder Wilson and his wife and baby, that doesn’t mean the newspaper bears no responsibility if the murderers use them as a source when the NYT usually doesn’t print such info. Spam is not the same thing as a triple murder.
Again, you can hold whatever view you want. You should, however, be able to make an intelligent argument for holding that view. So far all you have done is embarrass yourself with juvenile arguments that don’t make any sense and have no bearing on the matter.
” But shouldn’t the newspaper also have the integrity to protect innocent lives?”
Not really. Their job is to, hopefully, make money for their shareholders by, again hopefully, reporting on facts. In this case, the slimes fails miserably to make money for their shareholders. But they are still reporting facts when it comes to the officer’s address.
“I wouldn’t blame them for the actions of criminals. I would blame them for their own actions, however. Can’t you see the difference?”
All I see is your wanting for a business to not do what it wants/needs/pleases. It is no different from libtards ganging up on a cake business owners for not servicing homosexual wedding.
“But they won’t murder you, your wife and your baby. In this situation we are dealing with people who WILL.”
You cannot silence a business/individual 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.
“Even if it is criminals who murder Wilson and his wife and baby, that doesn’t mean the newspaper bears no responsibility if the murderers use them as a source when the NYT usually doesn’t print such info.”
Lots of “ifs” there. If Wilson is concerened about his safety, he should prepare for it. It is his responsibility to his wife and baby, not the slimes’.
Sorry, but you are appealing to the emotions like the libtards, not to reason.
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.