People lobbying against laws being a totally legal, and widespread practice is a good point. As is the point about censorship.
Specifically though, aren’t folks in the midst of an investigation (accusers, the accused, and potential witnesses) all prohibited from speaking about it while the investigation is ongoing?
Bonnie Navin was the source of the quote I posted. She has offered legal advice and support to people who have been the subject of Safe Sport accusations in the past. Apparently on a pro-bono basis. I’m not sure about the formality of her relationships to multiple cases, or what her professional or ethical obligations are in situations where she is supporting someone on a pro bono basis, and perhaps not even bound by a formal agreement as their primary legal representative.
Bottom line though, if she posted this because she actually presently KNOWS of an individual that is currently the subject of a Safe Sport report… how does she KNOW the details of the allegations and that they are false? If she is in the midst of an ongoing investigation, isn’t she supposed to refrain from talking about it publicly?
Is she’s not… aren’t the people in the midst of it not supposed to be speaking to her about it?
She is an officer of the court though, and has professional and ethical codes of conduct that she is required to abide by, above and beyond Safe Sport. If there truly is a complaint against a current USEF member who is an Olympic hopeful that is in the process of being investigated, and folks are being privately questioned about what they do and do t k ow with respect to the matter… a matter that potentially does involve the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor, or someone over whom the accused held considerable power (maybe an employee) it seems like it’s pretty darn inappropriate for an officer of the court to publicly state to a broad pool of potential witnesses investigators may or may not be in the process of questioning
“unless you have real facts, you better shut up.”