Reporting on a story doesn’t require commmitting the same crime as the thief. This is no different that sites posting ‘The Fappening’ photos. As the rational news outlets demonstrated, it was quite possible to report that story without publishing the stolen photos and thus violating their owner’s right to those photos…

“if you want an independent games press that covers stories we think are interesting and/or important — even if developers and publishers don’t want those stories getting out — welcome to Kotaku!”

“You read the article too, so I guess your guilty too”

LOL. Thank you for the straw man - ie the demonstration that you either don’t GET the -actual- argument put to you, or you DO get it but would rather attack a lie you create rather than face having to attack the -actual- argument.

Given your resort to a lengthy ad…

The impotence of empty ad homs is always amusing. Thanks for your flaccid demonstration. :)

And now you add to the ad homs YOU posted. Interesting how those defending criminality are the one’s without rational arguments. The reason? There are NO rational arguments FOR criminality. That leaves them ONLY with things like ad homs - ie logical fallacies. :)

“Informing the public about a rape is not scheduling the victim for a followup session with all of the readers.”

And more ad homs. Consistency in irrationality is not a virtue. But then, neither is advocating criminal behavior as “journalism”. :)

Sm1ley has NO rational response to the argument made against him, so he resorts to logical fallacies (ad homs). What a surprise.

Jason can report on the trespass and the theft of food and of information. Such reporting does not require him to publish the information itself which was stolen (or even what specific food was stolen, etc). By publishing the stolen information, he aides and abets the trespass and theft of the information. That is NOT…

“How do you go from wandering into an office building and enjoying a free lunch to rape and murder?”

Thank you for demonstrating you don’t understand the meaning of the term “principle”. The principle you advocate is ‘the ends justify the means’. It doesn’t matter HOW you get a story. All that matters is THAT you get…

“Good shit, Jason. I come here to learn everything I can” because it doesn’t matter HOW one learns something. Trespass, theft, rape, murder? Irrelevant. The ends JUSTIFY the means.

Always amazing to see people make such nonchalant appeals to blatant immorality. (But then again, it shouldn’t be - this is, after all,…

“why would anyone report on crimes as if they were news stories.”

Reporting a crime and aiding and abetting the criminal are two different things. When private information is stolen, a crime can be reported ABSENT the publishing of that information. When a woman is raped, a crime can be reported ABSENT the publishing…

“Two thumbs up!” to the principle ‘the ends justify the means’! It doesn’t matter HOW one gets a story. Trespass, theft, rape, murder? Who cares?! Demanding not JUST “paid advertising” means justifying any and all means of getting a story.

Journalistic ethics?! What are those? Morality? Doesn’t matter. All that matters…

PREACH IT! The ends justify the means! Journalistic ethics? What are those? It doesn’t matter HOW one gets the story - trespass, theft, rape, murder - who cares?! Hell, a juicy murder would get them some great free publicity!

Jason has no problem with HOW you get your information. Theft? So long as its for “stories we think are interesting and/or important” the MEANS don’t matter. ONLY the ends matter. The ends JUSTIFY the means.

By Jason’s principle, it wouldn’t matter if a person was MURDERED to get the information. “stories we think are…

Because there’s nothing morally wrong with using the property of another without their consent - nor is there anything morally wrong with stealing the property of another without their consent.

Obviously this means you have NO moral problems with people just using your car or emptying your fridge. After all, they are…

“Really...morally wrong? Come on.”

Its morally right for anybody to enter your house through a window you didn’t happen to lock, talk to your kids, play with your dog, watch your tv, while sneaking food out of your refrigerator for a meal. Hey, he exposed a security weakness and shared all the porn under your bed and…

““Every time the government forces us to give up freedom” IS an “overreach” - because the individual is NOT a slave to the government.”

“I even think, very begrudgingly, that it warrants the curtailing of individual liberty for that overall benefit.”

This is what I have been trying to argue against. This is the claim that the individual is NOT sovereign - that -something- else takes precedent and may dispose of the individual, regardless of that…

“I am not sure what you want me to refute or support at this point.”