Both sides presented in the article represent some interesting issues, and both certainly have credible supporting arguments behind them. In the end, however, it seems that printing the children’s names was unnecessary.
The possibility that the children could experience some rather damaging troubles later in life, and perhaps at this stage of their lives, cannot be denied. Google doesn’t erase records, and what is posted online is for all intensive purposes never deleted forever. The records could dog them for as long as the live.
But the main point, as stated in the article, is “why does it matter in this case.” If the actual story wasn’t about the children so much, and printing the names doesn’t add to the clarity or depth of the piece, then why take the risk in putting them in there.
Of course, The Times is correct in it’s defense that the judge didn’t deem the printing out of line, seeing as they were already printed elsewhere. That cannot be overturned, but it doesn’t make it right for them to potentially make the situation worse for the kids, especially if it doesn’t add to the story.
