Suspended sentences for two men who breached the ban on identifying James Bulger's killers, John Venables and Robert Thompson.
Speaking on the 20th anniversary of her son's death, the mother of murdered James Bulger said she will remember her son, "every single day".
James Bulger's mother has vowed to do "whatever it takes" to stop one of his killer's being granted parole after his sentence for child porn
Sir John Thomas sitting at the High Court ruled that the two men were in breach of the injunction and therefore in contempt of court.
Reflecting on the "gravity" of their offence he said they would be given nine months imprisonment but because of mitigating circumstances it would be suspended.
Social media users Dean Liddle and Neil Harkins have each received nine month jail sentences suspended for 15 months at London's High Court for breaching an injunction banning the revelation of the new identities of toddler James Bulger's killers.
Neil Harking defence has described him as 'of good character'.
His defence lawyer said that the father of three children aged 10, 8, and 3 stays at home as a house husband and is of good character. Saying he acted in a "foolish" and "naive" way, he thought that it would just go to his 141 followers on Facebook not the more than 24,000 people who shared it.
Barrister outlines Dean Liddle background, saying he works as voluntary assistant at local school to help the most challenging children. He is married with a son, who is profoundly deaf.
The court heard that Neil Harkins is a father and has young children and was very upset by the crimes committed by Venables and Thompson.
He put images on his Facebook page on 14th February 2013. Harkins has 141 followers and the images were shared with 24,039 people before he was contacted by the Attorney General and deactivated his account on 28th February.
He commented at the time of posting the picture "interesting that this photo isn't allowed to be shown and there's an investigation on how it got out. What's more interesting is why the he'll (sic) he got released and protected in the first place."
After he became aware he had broken the injunction he wrote to apologise in the fullest terms. He claimed that he had come across the pictures after logging onto a news article online.
After he was contacted by the Attorney General's office Dean Liddle posted the following tweets:
Just been served with court papers for posting picture of sick child killers Venables and Thompson. What a joke.
Love them to take me to court. I'll tell them exactly why I posted pictures of sick child killers.
But he quickly changed his tune when he received the letter saying that he would be prosecuted.
He then wrote and apologised, saying he had not fully understood the terms of the injunction and that he had seen the same images on hundreds of other sites.
The images were posted by Dean Liddle at 1.42am and removed less than an hour later, after questions were raised that they may have got the wrong people. The Twitter profile of Liddle had 915 followers.
The conversation that followed on the social network site said that it might be Venables and Liddle responds: "I was passed these by a friend if there is doubt about it being him I will remove."
He had earlier said in response to suggestion that child killers should be locked up for life: "I don't think that all child killers should be but after release he was arrested for child porn so agree here."
The court has been told that there is still a very strong ongoing public animosity against Venables and Thompson.
Several of the responses to the pictures were read out in court, showing that some members of public still feel that they should be in jail.
One said: "The majority of the country hate them and wish them dead."
The court has been told by the judge, Sir John Thomas, that it is accepted by these two individuals that there is no distinction between them blogging or tweeting as private individuals and the more traditional media, since their blogs or tweets can be accessed by thousands of people.
He has also told the court that he thinks it would be sensible for the Attorney General to put the injunction in a place where Internet users could easily see or access it.