This, plus just how egregious was it?
No one is wanting to read these messages like they're 50 Shades of Grey or anything like that. Well, there's probably somebody but that's not why most want to see it. Clearly it was not bad enough to get the police involved at the time, so we're talking less than To Catch A Predator.
Ignoring the age difference for a second, because that part is not relevant to my specific point here... What some people consider flirty, others consider creepy. On a similar note, the same comment coming from a person someone considers attractive and from someone they find ugly often has a completely different reaction.
Doc says that it crossed a line, that's not under debate by anyone at this point. He says there were no pictures, etc. exchanged, just messages and there was no intent to meet up or anything like that. On the other side one of the original tweets claimed they were sexting. Peoples definitions of sexting can vary dramatically as well.
So clearly the messages went over the line of being inappropriate, no argument there from anyone paying attention, but how far over that line was it? Were they truly explicit messages, or just inappropriate within the context of a 35 year old talking to a minor?
The rule is there to prevent them from releasing info the NTSB hasn't done a full analysis on, but that's not the case here. However, the info was already made public by the NTSB, to the Senate nonetheless.
In what world does it make sense that Boeing can't repeat the same thing when talking about it? Boeing isn't even allowed to repeat what the NTSB as publicly said? That's insane.
A judge would throw this out of court if it came before them, as a ridiculous waste of the court's time.