You are essentially defending censorship, and even worse, censorship when the news relates to a public figure but no censorship when it relates to the average tax payer. That is pretty messed up. Laying out the facts and letting the chips fall where they may can be ugly, but censorship is much uglier. I rather have the former.
Who said anything about censoring news about Bobby Rucci? In case you missed it, it was his SON, not him that was caught and charged with a felony. Unless Bobby Rucci was in the room with those two fools, he shouldn't even be brought up. Based on your logic, if that happened to the average tax payer, the reporter should list his immediate family members too. Do they? No, they don't.
I can't believe some of the people on this thread. I don't know the Ruccis and I couldn't give two craps about them. All I'm saying is that the reporter was a jacka$$ for volunteering info that was irrelevant to the case, so instead of it being about some dumb kid doing something stupid, it becomes political. Funny how people take so much pride in their own privacy but can't understand other people's right to it. Go figure.