For future defence.

Somehow, I don't think I'm alone in this.

The specific prosecutors were not rebuked, however the judge did have some very hash words for the executive branch.

I'd suggest reading the entire transcript of the court's decision, and drawing your own conclusions. By comparison, that article in the post is far less interesting to read.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/drake/071511-transcript.pdf

One very important point that the Judge made: he blames the government (executive branch) as a whole, not the specific prosecutors who handled the case in the latter stages:
-------
THE COURT: I have one more matter to address,
and Mr. Welch, I know I asked some tough questions of you,
I've had some tough comments for the executive branch of
government today, but I want the record to reflect that both
you and Mr. Pearson have conducted yourself with the height
of professionalism before me in any and all matters, and you
weren't known to the court before you arrived and I'm not
sure if you'll be back in this court because you're from
other jury jurisdiction, but I want to commend you for your
level of professionalism in all matters before the court,
both in public matters and some of the classified hearings
and I commend you for your professionalism. Sometimes it's
tough to be the messenger, Mr. Welch, when you have to try to
answer for the entire U.S. government. I wasn't casting
anything personally upon you, it was more directed at the
executive branch, and I commend you and Mr. Pearson for your
professionalism in this case.of professionalism before me in any and all matters, and you
Sometimes it's
tough to be the messenger, Mr. Welch, when you have to try to
answer for the entire U.S. government. I wasn't casting
anything personally upon you, it was more directed at the
executive branch, and I commend you and Mr. Pearson for your
professionalism in this case.
--------------

That is a direct quote from the transcript, pages 47-48

My son recently turned 7, and is quite the proto-gamer. He's got his own steam account, and he is a Minecraft/Terraria addict.

About a year or so ago, he started his youtube fix: he wanted to watch 'how-to'/review videos for transformers, star wars, and lego toys. This posed a major dilemma for me: he really enjoys watching the videos, but lets face it, there is a lot of 'inappropriate' language. One day, after telling him to skip a video for the nth time, I simply decided to stop the censorship. I sat him down, and taught him all the dirty words. We talked about reasonable limits. I.e. things he's allowed to search for, and when he needs to stop following the 'related path'. I told him point blank that I have high expectations for him, but I trust him. I can't protect him from the world, but I can shape his interpretation of it. He knows that if he imitates some of the bad language/behaviour, he's going to get an internet 'grounding'.

I take the same approach for his gaming fix: he's allowed to play a wide assortment of games, but only on his own, or with ppl he knows IRL. He has an email address, and a skype account, but he knows that they are 'family' only.

His computer (my old gaming rig) is right beside where I work, and we talk about what he is seeing/hearing. I probably won't know for a few years how things turn out from a moral perspective, but I do know that his reading/writing/logic skills are substantially more advanced than his peers. At 7 (grade 1), he is reading the minecraft wiki, and his google-fu is starting to develop. I'm looking forward to seeing what happens when he takes his iPad with him when he visits his Grandma's house this summer.