Update on Ron Swift/Randy Hatlee Hearing August 1st, 2012

By stating that you didn't blame PC for not allowing this to be posted implied that you did blame 285Bound for doing so because it's obviously here, when you used to cheer the fact that 285Bound allowed free speech and the mods didn't decide for you what was acceptable and what wasn't. That was my only point; it's not a consistent viewpoint from what you used to say. If it's not what you meant, then it's my bad for misunderstanding you.

Nope, I have no problem with you posting your opinion of what was posted by In a whisper. I don't think they are trying to "shove it down our throats", they merely posted their version of what happened and, as I already said, I'm hoping that the court transcripts become available soon so we can all view the dialog as is with no opinion interjected.

Yes, there was some moderation done to protect personal private identities, but the entire post otherwise is left with public names and personal opinion, unlike on Pinecam where they deleted the entire thing, then posted a copy of their TOS in big bold scolding letters right in that post.

jf1, I can't recall what was posted before so I can't really answer your question accurately, but my guess is that they were videos or still images captured from videos? Not really sure...

Becky wrote: The question still stands. Why were some names arbitrarily removed and others weren't?

Already answered:

Yes, there was some moderation done to protect personal private identities, but the entire post otherwise is left with public names and personal opinion

Becky wrote: Actually....you didn't answer the question. as to why some names were starred and others were not.

Shouldn't all individuals expect the same right to privacy?

Actually, it is my opinion that none of the names should have been starred as this is a matter of public record. I am just trying to understand why only certain names were starred and others were not so that I can apply the moderation thought process to my own posts in the future. It is a little confusing.
How does one define "public" names as opposed to private ones?

Public officials like lawyers, judges, and DA's, or those whose names have been published in a newspaper, like the defendants, can have their names used, and all of these individuals in the OP had previously been mentioned by name in the official court transcripts or prior news articles so they are a matter of public record. Private individuals who have not been named in a news source or official record cannot. This was not an official court document, it was a personal account of the proceedings so all private individuals had their names starred out, plus references to personal relationships were starred out, and all public officials had their names left.

In order to reference a private individual's name, you must have a news article as a source. We respect people's rights to privacy and anonymity on this forum.