” 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.
“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.
...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.