NYT was going to publish home address of Fox news reporter

[Slaughter None]

NYT acronym for the "New York Times" had hired Murray Carpenter, a reporter for the NYT to publish Fox News reporter Tucker Carlson's home address. This is clearly a way to threaten his family and de-base his platform. Here is a video of Tucker Carlson talking about it on his segment:-
https://youtu.be/b7IkxdLpJJg

Despite what you may think about his politics this is clearly a denouncable deed by the NYT. You don't have the right to silence your political opponents. What do you think?

EDIT:NYT has gone back on their decision to publish Tucker Carlson's home address after much backlash and also allege that they were never going to publish it.

Seriously? The mighty dreaded NYT is coming after Tucker Carlson. This isn't just something TC made up. Here's the proof! Tucker Carlson said it himself?

Of course there must be more evidence, I'm sure it's later in the thread. But what's this? The OP edits the OP to bring us the startling news that NYT deny it! Well that's it then. Anything NYT says is a lie, therefore what Tucker said is true!

Top stuff. Real quality Citizen Journalism here, new poster with an unattractive name. I'll be looking out for more like this! Also I'm be sure to watch more of The Tucker Carlson Show, it's really good isn't it?

First of all I am not a Journalist(this is not journalism, this is opinion), second my name was randomly generated and was the only name that I could find that wasn't in use(also does my Nation name really matter and also it says to slaughter nobody so your argument falls flat here) second you can either beleive NYT who has an incentive to lie or you can believe Tucker who doesn't and also this has happened to him before.

[-Astoria-]

Seriously? The mighty dreaded NYT is coming after Tucker Carlson. This isn't just something TC made up. Here's the proof! Tucker Carlson said it himself?

Of course there must be more evidence, I'm sure it's later in the thread. But what's this? The OP edits the OP to bring us the startling news that NYT deny it! Well that's it then. Anything NYT says is a lie, therefore what Tucker said is true!

Top stuff. Real quality Citizen Journalism here, new poster with an unattractive name. I'll be looking out for more like this! Also I'm be sure to watch more of The Tucker Carlson Show, it's really good isn't it?

First of all I am not a Journalist(this is not journalism, this is opinion), second my name was randomly generated and was the only name that I could find that wasn't in use(also does my Nation name really matter and also it says to slaughter nobody so your argument falls flat here)

Do you know what an opinion is?

second you can either beleive NYT who has an incentive to lie or you can believe Tucker who doesn't and also this has happened to him before.

Good lord, I can't... ... wait, are you being serious?

[Vassenor]

Seriously? The mighty dreaded NYT is coming after Tucker Carlson. This isn't just something TC made up. Here's the proof! Tucker Carlson said it himself?

Of course there must be more evidence, I'm sure it's later in the thread. But what's this? The OP edits the OP to bring us the startling news that NYT deny it! Well that's it then. Anything NYT says is a lie, therefore what Tucker said is true!

Top stuff. Real quality Citizen Journalism here, new poster with an unattractive name. I'll be looking out for more like this! Also I'm be sure to watch more of The Tucker Carlson Show, it's really good isn't it?

First of all I am not a Journalist(this is not journalism, this is opinion), second my name was randomly generated and was the only name that I could find that wasn't in use(also does my Nation name really matter and also it says to slaughter nobody so your argument falls flat here) second you can either beleive NYT who has an incentive to lie or you can believe Tucker who doesn't and also this has happened to him before.

So you have no evidence it was actually going to happen beyond wishing it were true really really really hard.

[Kowani]

…No, actually, they have no incentive to do so.

If they say that they actually meant to release his address wouldn't they be blasted further on social media and they could also face this going to court.

What I’m getting is you have no idea what I was talking about.

[Liriena]

That is patently impossible. No person can be "non-ideological". A news organization will inevitably be "ideological" by virtue of being the product of specific social, economic and cultural conditions that it cannot escape.

I would have to agree with you on that atleast no news channel nor a person can be completely non-biased but talking about the NYT ofcourse they would deny that they were never going to post his address they have a huge incentive to do so.

Jesus fucking christ why do you insist on dying on this hill?

[Vassenor]

I would have to agree with you on that atleast no news channel nor a person can be completely non-biased but talking about the NYT ofcourse they would deny that they were never going to post his address they have a huge incentive to do so.

Jesus fucking christ why do you insist on dying on this hill?

Because the alternative is accepting that Carlson lied again.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

That is patently impossible. No person can be "non-ideological". A news organization will inevitably be "ideological" by virtue of being the product of specific social, economic and cultural conditions that it cannot escape.

I would have to agree with you on that atleast no news channel nor a person can be completely non-biased but talking about the NYT ofcourse they would deny that they were never going to post his address they have a huge incentive to do so.

Slaughter None is a wanted criminal on the run!

What? You deny that accusation? Well, that clearly means nothing, since you have every reason to deny the accusation! What would you gain from admitting to your numerous, horrendous crimes?

The fact is, Tucker Carlson has given no proof at all. For the same reason that no one should believe my baseless accusation against you, no one should believe Tucker Carlson's accusation, unless he comes up with solid proof.

[Slaughter None]

First of all I am not a Journalist(this is not journalism, this is opinion), second my name was randomly generated and was the only name that I could find that wasn't in use(also does my Nation name really matter and also it says to slaughter nobody so your argument falls flat here)

Do you know what an opinion is?

second you can either beleive NYT who has an incentive to lie or you can believe Tucker who doesn't and also this has happened to him before.

Good lord, I can't... ... wait, are you being serious?

Yes I do know what an opinion is all I am saying don't expect my posts to be non - biased secondly are you denying that doxxing has happened to him before?

[-Astoria-]

secondly are you denying that doxxing has happened to him before?

No (ironically by his current employer); but choosing to keep thinking this recent non-event happened is absurd.

[Slaughter None]

I would have to agree with you on that atleast no news channel nor a person can be completely non-biased but talking about the NYT ofcourse they would deny that they were never going to post his address they have a huge incentive to do so.

Slaughter None is a wanted criminal on the run!

What? You deny that accusation? Well, that clearly means nothing, since you have every reason to deny the accusation! What would you gain from admitting to your numerous, horrendous crimes?

The fact is, Tucker Carlson has given no proof at all. For the same reason that no one should believe my baseless accusation against you, no one should believe Tucker Carlson's accusation, unless he comes up with solid proof.

How about the fact that they have done this before:- https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... r-n1059331

[-Astoria-]

Slaughter None is a wanted criminal on the run!

What? You deny that accusation? Well, that clearly means nothing, since you have every reason to deny the accusation! What would you gain from admitting to your numerous, horrendous crimes?

The fact is, Tucker Carlson has given no proof at all. For the same reason that no one should believe my baseless accusation against you, no one should believe Tucker Carlson's accusation, unless he comes up with solid proof.

How about the fact that they have done this before:- https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... r-n1059331

Don't run away from the topic at hand with that whataboutism: that is, that there is still no proof from Carlson.

[Gravlen]

…No, actually, they have no incentive to do so.

If they say that they actually meant to release his address wouldn't they be blasted further on social media and they could also face this going to court.

Why would this "go to court"? The NYT would not be in legal trouble for admitting it if they actually had a plan to publish his adress (there's no credible evidence supporting that they did have such a plan). In fact, the NYT would not be in legal trouble if they had published his adress.

This is the second time you've thrown out the idea of legal ramifications without any further details, by the way.

[Slaughter None]

If they say that they actually meant to release his address wouldn't they be blasted further on social media and they could also face this going to court.

Why would this "go to court"? The NYT would not be in legal trouble for admitting it if they actually had a plan to publish his adress (there's no credible evidence supporting that they did have such a plan). In fact, the NYT would not be in legal trouble if they had published his adress.

This is the second time you've thrown out the idea of legal ramifications without any further details, by the way.

I never said they would face legal ramifications for admitting anything but if they had posted his home address they might have have faced charges for invasion of privacy, read here:- https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/publis ... nformation

[Gravlen]

Slaughter None is a wanted criminal on the run!

What? You deny that accusation? Well, that clearly means nothing, since you have every reason to deny the accusation! What would you gain from admitting to your numerous, horrendous crimes?

The fact is, Tucker Carlson has given no proof at all. For the same reason that no one should believe my baseless accusation against you, no one should believe Tucker Carlson's accusation, unless he comes up with solid proof.

How about the fact that they have done this before:- https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... r-n1059331

That's... not doxxing. It's not a similar thing as what we're talking about (specifying a whistleblower's profession and employer vs. publishing a residential adress) and it's not remotely the same situation. The question of the whistleblower's profession and employer was highly relevant to the story of Trump's abuse of power because it supported the credibility of the claims the whistleblower made.

Next you're going to complain that they doxxed the Golden State Killer when they named him.

[Slaughter None]

How about the fact that they have done this before:- https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... r-n1059331

Don't run away from the topic at hand with that whataboutism: that is, that there is still no proof from Carlson.

What about the fact that a group associated with Antifa has threatened him and said that "he shouldn't sleep well at night".

[Slaughter None]

How about the fact that they have done this before:- https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... r-n1059331

That's... not doxxing. It's not a similar thing as what we're talking about (specifying a whistleblower's profession and employer vs. publishing a residential adress) and it's not remotely the same situation. The question of the whistleblower's profession and employer was highly relevant to the story of Trump's abuse of power because it supported the credibility of the claims the whistleblower made.

Next you're going to complain that they doxxed the Golden State Killer when they named him.

I never said it was similar it is only proof that they have leaked private information before.

[Vassenor]

That's... not doxxing. It's not a similar thing as what we're talking about (specifying a whistleblower's profession and employer vs. publishing a residential adress) and it's not remotely the same situation. The question of the whistleblower's profession and employer was highly relevant to the story of Trump's abuse of power because it supported the credibility of the claims the whistleblower made.

Next you're going to complain that they doxxed the Golden State Killer when they named him.

I never said it was similar it is only proof that they have leaked private information before.

And how does that prove that they were going to do it this time?

[-Astoria-]

Don't run away from the topic at hand with that whataboutism: that is, that there is still no proof from Carlson.

What about the fact that a group associated with Antifa has threatened him and said that "he shouldn't sleep well at night".

What did I just say?

[Gravlen]

Why would this "go to court"? The NYT would not be in legal trouble for admitting it if they actually had a plan to publish his adress (there's no credible evidence supporting that they did have such a plan). In fact, the NYT would not be in legal trouble if they had published his adress.

This is the second time you've thrown out the idea of legal ramifications without any further details, by the way.

I never said they would face legal ramifications for admitting anything but if they had posted his home address they might have have faced charges for invasion of privacy, read here:- https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/publis ... nformation

That's absurd. As the link you provided says, the following must be true in order to establish legal liability:

1. Public Disclosure: The disclosure of facts must be public. Another way of saying this is that the defendant must "give publicity" to the fact or facts in question.
2. Private Fact: The fact or facts disclosed must be private, and not generally known.
3. Offensive to a Reasonable Person: Publication of the private facts in question must be offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.
4. Not Newsworthy: The facts disclosed must not be newsworthy. Stated differently, the facts disclosed must not be a matter of legitimate public concern.

If nothing else, such a claim would fail under no. 3. As your link continues to explain:

A plaintiff bringing a publication of private facts claim must show that, under the circumstances, publishing the facts in question would have been highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities. The question is not whether the plaintiff himself/herself found the public disclosure highly offensive, but whether an ordinary person reflecting community mores would find it so. Thus, the law does not give special solicitude to a plaintiff with a "thin skin." As the Restatement of Torts explains:

Complete privacy does not exist in this world except in a desert, and anyone who is not a hermit must expect and endure the ordinary incidents of the community life of which he is a part. Thus he must expect the more or less casual observation of his neighbors as to what he does, and that his comings and goings and his ordinary daily activities, will be described in the press as a matter of casual interest to others. The ordinary reasonable man does not take offense at a report in a newspaper that he has returned from a visit, gone camping in the woods or given a party at his house for his friends. Even minor and moderate annoyance, as for example through public disclosure of the fact that the plaintiff has clumsily fallen downstairs and broken his ankle, is not sufficient to give him a cause of action under the rule stated in this Section. It is only when the publicity given to him is such that a reasonable person would feel justified in feeling seriously aggrieved by it, that the cause of action arises.

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 263D cmt. c. Some examples of activities found to be highly offensive include publishing a photograph of a woman nursing a child or posing nude in a bathtub, displaying a movie of a woman's caesarian operation, and disseminating a video showing two celebrities having sex. Some activities found not to be highly offensive include publishing an accurate account of a private wedding, publishing a photograph of a couple kissing in public, and publishing photographs of military personnel showing potential prisoner abuse.

Tucker Carlson is living openly at a fixed adress. That's something easily observed from the outside, and the openness of a public adress. It would thus fail at no. 3.

There's an additional wrinkle. As your link shows:

In Cox Broadcasting v. Cohen, 420 U.S. 469 (1975), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits states from imposing a penalty on the press for publishing accurate information obtained from a public court record. As a result of this case, most states recognize an absolute privilege for publication of information found in a publicly available (i.e., not sealed) court record.

Let me remind you that a lawsuit was filed against Carlson in both his professional and personal capacity. If the story refers to the lawsuit, and the lawsuit identifies his adress, it is protected speech.

So again, no, they could not face any such charges. (Mind you, we're only talking civil action here, and not criminal charges.)

[Gravlen]

That's... not doxxing. It's not a similar thing as what we're talking about (specifying a whistleblower's profession and employer vs. publishing a residential adress) and it's not remotely the same situation. The question of the whistleblower's profession and employer was highly relevant to the story of Trump's abuse of power because it supported the credibility of the claims the whistleblower made.

Next you're going to complain that they doxxed the Golden State Killer when they named him.

I never said it was similar it is only proof that they have leaked private information before.

When did they leak information? Because the story you linked to wasn't about them leaking information, it was about the reporting on relevant facts. Do you have problems understanding the difference?

[The Andromeda Island Group]

NYT acronym for the "New York Times" had hired Murray Carpenter, a reporter for the NYT to publish Fox News reporter Tucker Carlson's home address. This is clearly a way to threaten his family and de-base his platform. Here is a video of Tucker Carlson talking about it on his segment:-
https://youtu.be/b7IkxdLpJJg

Despite what you may think about his politics this is clearly a denouncable deed by the NYT. You don't have the right to silence your political opponents. What do you think?

EDIT:NYT has gone back on their decision to publish Tucker Carlson's home address after much backlash and also allege that they were never going to publish it.

So, the real title of this thread:

NYT didn't publish home address of Fox News shill
Tucker Carlson engages in fake outrage for 12 millionth time.

[Gravlen]

By the way, based on Slaughter None's erroneous understanding of the law, I looked up the suit against Carlson. I now think that the whole thing really is about the suit against him, and the logic is as follows:

The NYT were going to report on the lawsuit. One of the documents connected to the lawsuit, specifically a summons to Tucker Carlson, contains an adress for him. Thus, attempting to shift attention away from the suit itself, and mobilizing his followers against the NYT and the reporter, Carlson highlights this fact and claims the reporting will include his adress (which it wouldn't, since this document isn't pertinent to the main case). It also serves as a deterrent in case someone were to link directly to the publicly available documents connected to Eckhart v. Fox News Network.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Seriously? The mighty dreaded NYT is coming after Tucker Carlson. This isn't just something TC made up. Here's the proof! Tucker Carlson said it himself?

Of course there must be more evidence, I'm sure it's later in the thread. But what's this? The OP edits the OP to bring us the startling news that NYT deny it! Well that's it then. Anything NYT says is a lie, therefore what Tucker said is true!

Top stuff. Real quality Citizen Journalism here, new poster with an unattractive name. I'll be looking out for more like this! Also I'm be sure to watch more of The Tucker Carlson Show, it's really good isn't it?

First of all I am not a Journalist(this is not journalism, this is opinion), second my name was randomly generated and was the only name that I could find that wasn't in use(also does my Nation name really matter and also it says to slaughter nobody so your argument falls flat here) second you can either beleive NYT who has an incentive to lie or you can believe Tucker who doesn't and also this has happened to him before.

I was making fun of you. All OP's should aspire to be Citizen Journalists. Bearing in mind always, that their personal reputation is on the line, if they "publish" something untrue.

Something Tucker said made you start a thread.
Thus giving Tucker more fame and notoriety.
And you say he has no incentive to lie.

Dude, you are right now giving him incentive to lie again!

Tucker is playing YOU, like a dollar shop plastic trumpet.

[Ansarre]

Slaughter None is a wanted criminal on the run!

What? You deny that accusation? Well, that clearly means nothing, since you have every reason to deny the accusation! What would you gain from admitting to your numerous, horrendous crimes?

The fact is, Tucker Carlson has given no proof at all. For the same reason that no one should believe my baseless accusation against you, no one should believe Tucker Carlson's accusation, unless he comes up with solid proof.

How about the fact that they have done this before:- https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... r-n1059331

Also the slate star codex issue.

[Gravlen]

How about the fact that they have done this before:- https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... r-n1059331

Also the slate star codex issue.

You mean the case where the NYT didn't publish an article with his name?

I feel like there's something about the underlined which undermines your point...