Taboo Topics?

SkepticOverlord

paradoxstyle
If something was inappriately mentioned, wouldn't it just be easier to just edit out the word or a few to remove the 'personal info'?

No!

What is so damn difficult to understand about having the simple decency of not posting the personal information of private people involved in a tragedy on the Internet.

It simply shouldn't happen. There should be no need to edit.

It's despicable. There's a long list of other colorful adjectives that I'd use face to face, that I would not in this mixed environment of ATS>

I can understand not sharing personal information and I agree with that point of view certain aspects of private personal information about private individuals should not be shared on an open forum, but I only shared what I found in mainstream news articles and reports about the incident which is public knowledge not private personal information unless I am wrong about this in some way that I am unaware of.

If you had a chance to click on some of the links you had to have seen it pointed to interviews the witnessess did themselves to a reporter, which makes it public information. There wasn't anything personal per say because I have not had the opportunity to meet any of the individuals related in this matter in person/reality, most of my information was obtained from reporters and journalists, with maybe some commentary by the person who hosted the caption online.

Maybe the question boils down to what is personal private information vs public information and that is the confusion. Being an open forum I'm sure we all want to share knowledge and information as do yourself. It benefits us all, and helps us stay granted on a track closest to the truth possible by hearing multiple sides of a story both opposing and for so we want to share as much as possible but what is too much to share.

If I had to bet I would say anything private individuals that share with the public through reporting should be deamed public information and should be talked about. If an individual doesn't mention a word about himself and their life and does not share anything with the public, and if the information isint found through the means of journalistic journalism (which in theory their job is to release only legal information to the public that can legally be talked about) then it might not be acceptable to discuss and/or if it's including private contact details. However if it's the opposite and they share their story with us should we not have the permission to discuss their story in open whether it's agreeing or disagreeing with them?

they fictionalize in movies the characters that actaully exist in real life.

Daedalus
could you comment on the thread in question, since the open asked about it, specifically?

No. The thread was offered as an example of Sandy Hook related topics.

paradoxstyle
If you had a chance to click on some of the links you had to have seen it pointed to interviews the witnessess did themselves to a reporter, which makes it public information.

Absurdly wrong.

Seriously. If you and others cannot fathom the absolute depths of utter disgusting human behavior which is to speculate on heinous crimes of private individuals just because they appeared in a media interview after a horrific tragedy, I fear for common decency.

Issue has been asked and answered.