Huh? Who is arguing against publicizing the case? Please leave your strawman arguments home.
Sorry, I certainly did not intend to use any strawman arguments. I was only referring to this line in the article which suggests a possible solution:
Perhaps the story should not have been covered at all, or anywhere near as much as it was.
I didn't mean to suggest that you thought it was a good idea. I was just tossing it out there as an example of a solution, because I don't really see any viable solution. I can see how this looks like a strawman argument. I guess not publishing the names would be a good idea, but I wonder how long that would last with blogs, facebook, etc.
What I'm saying is: I don't think the verdict is dangerous to depressed kids, but assuming that you're correct that it is, I'm not sure that that should have any significant impact on our future decision making anyway.