Is it just me or is there something odd about this piece in today’s New York Times:

Free Speech on Twitter Faces Test

SAN FRANCISCO — What began as seamy gossip about an affair between a famous British soccer player and a reality TV star has quickly become another test over how far the rights to privacy and free speech extend online, where social media operate in countries with vastly different laws.

The soccer player has been granted a so-called super-injunction, a stringent and controversial British legal measure that prevents media outlets from identifying him, reporting on the story or even from revealing the existence of the court order itself.

But tens of thousands of Internet users have flouted the injunction by revealing his name on Twitter, Facebook and online soccer forums, sites that blur the definition of the press and are virtually impossible to police.

And not just Internet users – news organizations have also revealed the name:

[T]he soccer player’s name is now so widely known that it has become a running joke, discussed — with the name bleeped out — on prime-time television. Foreign publications like Forbes.com and The Sunday Herald, a Scottish paper, have printed his name.

But not the Times. Which is fine, except wouldn’t you think the piece would mention why the paper’s withholding the name? Just asking.

P.S. The hardworking staff isn’t revealing the name in hopes that the Times will question our decision.