So naturally, he wrote another article on her. About how we shouldn't ruin people's lives. I'll acknowledge his self-righteous indignation when he stops participating in what he's allegedly indignant about for clicks and money.Recently, I wrote to Sacco and asked her to meet me one final time to update me on her life. Her response was speedy. “No way.”
She said, “Anything that puts the spotlight on me is a negative.”
I don't think having an article written about you that says "you all are wrong for screwing this person up" is going to ruin a life. I don't think that the person is correct that "anything that puts me in the spotlight is negative". And I do think that seeing someone suddenly scared to appear in any news piece is a great example of the damage mob-justice causes.
I don't either. But she thinks so, and I think it's contemptible to go against someone's wishes, especially with regard to their own protection, like that.I don't think that the person is correct that "anything that puts me in the spotlight is negative".
I find it perhaps most fascinating when circledots are split evenly(ish) between two opinions. Usually seems to indicate when a topic may not have a correct answer. P.S. I agree with you, personally, but I think it's great when the community's divided.
I guess it could go either way. For example, this http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2015/06/whos_the_speaker_at_his_graduation_the_man_who_sent_him_to_prison.html Followed by this http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2015/06/car_dealer_fires_former_gang_member_after_syracusecom_story_about_his_success.html One happening isn't a statistic but here's at least an example of how the well-intentioned coverage can cause trouble.
What he wrote is already in his book, from which this article is adapted. Like all of the other spots he's done, it's both to raise awareness of the problem, and of his description of the problem.