"If you can't legally reveal an address, why can you legally reveal a name" is a legal question. Either you care about the law or you don't. Caring selectively is ridiculous.
-
-
There's a tension, certainly, but we have lots of situations in law where two (or more) different ideals are at tension with one another. In almost every last such situation, the law strikes some sort of middle ground. Balancing tests are way more common than brightlines.
-
You even have "meta-balancing" in a sense. A rule that would arguably be "more fair" might not be used because administering it is too complicated or too prone to error, and so you choose a "less fair" rule that is more readily administered.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
instructive: the German law on spent convictions. you're limited in your ability to tell the world about them forever afterwards. so German Wikipedia obeys this rule, even tho they legally don't have to being hosted in the US because it's seen as a matter of due privacy
-
I actually approve of having laws about spent convictions, because those laws limit what THE STATE may do vastly more than they limit any individual. (If you find out someone was a thief, you can still tell your buddies, you just can't take out a newspaper ad.)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.