By Julie M. Anderson Holburn
On April 29, 2025, the Orange County District Attorney’s Office (OCDA) hosted a Facebook livestreamed ceremony in honor of National Crime Victims Rights Week. The event was promoted as a public, inclusive occasion to recognize survivors and invite community engagement.
But when this journalist submitted a series of comments calling for accountability in family court, CPS, and law enforcement, four of those comments were deleted by OCDA moderators during the livestream.
Censored For Speaking Out: Selective Deletion of Accountability Comments
- “Fully investigate domestic violence and child abuse reports that have correlating family law cases without bias. Inform the victims and public of the good cause waiver!”
- “Hold CPS social workers involved in these cases accountable.”
- “Hold the few local law enforcement involved in these cases accountable.”
- “Hold Family Court appointed minors counsel, therapists and evaluators accountable—investigate OC family court: staff, judges and court appointed professionals—make public call for federal intervention.”
These comments were peaceful, on-topic, and submitted during a government-sponsored event meant to amplify victim voices. The remaining seven comments—primarily hashtags such as #JusticeForOCchildren, #JusticeForTarNolan, #JusticeForAnnaMogavero, #JusticeForVictimsOfJessicaStClair, #JusticeForVictimsOfFamilyCourt, #JusticeForVictimsOfORANGECOUNTYCPS, and #JusticeForTawnvMinnaGrossman—were not deleted.
This pattern of selective deletion strongly suggests viewpoint-based censorship.
View video with deleted comments here:
Censored For Speaking Out: Deleting Critical Comments Violates Free Speech
In Lindke v. Freed (2024), the U.S. Supreme Court held that when public officials engage in social media activity under color of law, their conduct must conform to constitutional standards. Similarly, in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, the court ruled that deleting or blocking critics on official social media platforms constituted unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
The deleted comments in this case did not contain profanity, threats, or misinformation. They called for investigations into child protection failures and judicial oversight—issues undeniably relevant to crime victims’ rights.
Censored For Speaking Out: Public Records Request Sent to OCDA
In response to the deletions, this reporter submitted a formal media inquiry and California Public Records Act (CPRA)request to the OCDA. The following questions were posed:
- What is OCDA’s official policy regarding moderation or deletion of comments during livestreamed events?
- What legal or internal authority governs such deletions?
- How does OCDA ensure its moderation practices align with First Amendment protections?
- Does OCDA consider public calls for oversight of CPS or law enforcement to be a violation of its engagement policy?
The CPRA request also seeks:
- All comment moderation policies,
- Communications or directives related to the April 29 event, and
- A full record of deleted comments and the rationale behind those removals.
A formal response from OCDA is pending.
Words vs. Actions: OCDA’s Own Statement Undermines Its Deletion
“National Crime Victims’ Rights Week is a time to pay tribute to crime victims, acknowledge those who advocate on their behalf, and promote awareness about victims’ rights… At the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, we are champions for the rights of victims and survivors of crime.”
“Survivors and their families are given a platform to share their stories, offering a powerful testament to their resilience and strength… Please join us… to help us ensure that the voices of victims continue to be heard louder and stronger than the voices of criminals.”
This statement makes the deletion of public comments—posted by a journalist and advocate seeking justice for overlooked victims—even more troubling. The livestream was presented as a platform for survivors and their advocates. Yet, when those voices questioned the integrity of CPS, law enforcement, and the courts, they were silenced.
Censored For Speaking Out: Petition Delivered Directly to DA Todd Spitzer
The petition—titled “Demand a Thorough Investigation into Practices of OC Superior Court, CA – Family Court”—was printed and hand-delivered directly to District Attorney Todd Spitzer.
The petition remains available for signature and at time of publication was approaching 14, 000 signatures.
Sign and share the petition here:
Demand a Thorough Investigation into Practices of OC Superior Court, CA – Family Court
Censored For Speaking Out: A Pattern of Suppression?
Now, that suppression appears to extend to official livestreams during victim-centered events. The irony is staggering: a government agency, during a Crime Victims Rights ceremony, deleted calls for accountability submitted on behalf of victims.
Public Forums Must Stay Public
Deleting public comments like these is not just unethical.
It is an abuse of power—and a violation of constitutional law.
OCDA owes the public an explanation.
A formal CPRA and media inquiry were submitted to the Orange County District Attorney’s Office on April 29, 2025. This article will be updated when a response is received.
Further independent coverage of the Nolan v. Nolan case and other Orange County cases can be found here:
Judged, Gagged, Separated, Silenced: The Taran Nolan Case
Injustice in OC: mom of tar’s road to recovery faces unjust & prolonged separation from her kids
OC Court Delays for 10 Months—Then Demands $4,240 for One Public Record
Update: “Tar’s Road to Recovery” Mom Bullied by OC Minors’ Counsel in Fight Over Special Needs Trust
Orange County Judges Block Public and Media from Court Hearings
Weaponized Gag Orders: How an OC Judge Is Silencing a Quadriplegic Mother’s Fight for Justice
OCDA Ignores Good Cause Law, Family Court Violates Due Process in Tawny Minna Grossman Case
Judicial Misconduct in OC? Judge’s Threats Against Mother Over Media Coverage Become Reality
OC Man Charged with 5 Felony Counts of Molestation: Family Court and CPS Ignored Reports for Years
The victims of Jessica St. Clair, part three
California Judges: The Good, the Bad, and the… San Joaquin County, Part Two
RELATED:
Victim of OC’s Deadliest Mass Shooting Says DA Defamed Him in Retaliation for Peaceful Protest
OC District Attorney Could Face Trial for Allegedly Punishing Whistleblowers
