How exactly do you "censor" something information that is part of the public record? It's part of the public record.

Nobody is saying they aren't allowed to publish the information. Tabloids exist and can say whatever they want, but a serious outlet like Ars is held to higher standards by their customers. I assume Ars removed the names because they agreed those details were unnecessary and only served as a potential liability for those named.

Free speech means the freedom to say or not say what you want. Ars chose to not say something of their own volition.

> How exactly do you "censor" something information that is part of the public record? It's part of the public record.

Ars censored themselves. It's the chilling effect against free speech in action.

Self censorship is nonsense. Freedom of speech entails the right to not say things you don't want to. People tend to avoid saying things others don't like - particularly businesses whose profits depend on their reputation.

> Freedom of speech entails the right to not say things you don't want to

Ars clearly wanted to say it, which is why they published what they originally did. However, because of the chilling effect, they felt the need to go back and retroactively censor themselves even if they didn't want to.

Heaven forbid Ars changes their mind on something.

Have you never said something you later regretted? Have you never corrected something after posting it?

Is every post-release edit to an article another death knell for free speech?