On Tuesday, state officials put the Porngate scandal to bed in the most unsatisfying and unhelpful way possible, and denied taxpayers and voters vital information in the process.

The report, redacted by the office of current Attorney General Bruce Beemer, originally named at least 13 Pennsylvania judges and senior state government officials as among the dozens of public employees who shared pornographic, racist or other inappropriate material over state computers. The list also reportedly includes two police chiefs and a member of the Pennsylvania General Assembly.

Beemer’s reasoning on the matter is sketchy at best. He told reporters on Tuesday that he deemed it “imprudent” to release the full report because of privacy concerns, labor contracts, liability and other issues. He also derided the document — compiled by former Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler for Deemer’s predecessor, Kathleen Kane — as inept and unfair.

What’s imprudent is leaving Pennsylvania residents in the dark regarding who, exactly, believes it’s acceptable to use a government computer and e-mail system to spread images and messages of hate and misogyny.

What’s unfair is defacing and dismissing a report which concludes, essentially, that the OAG and state court system are awash with casual hate speech and pornography, both of which erode public confidence in institutions vital to the preservation of law and order.

Discovery of these e-mails has already forced the resignations of two state Supreme Court justices — Seamus McCaffery and J. Michael Eakin — as well as disciplinary actions against dozens of state employees. As the report itself notes: “[P]ublic confidence in those who represent Pennsylvanians ... or who serve the Commonwealth ... in public agencies or departments, is shaken when those persons send inappropriate e-mails.”

This isn’t just about whether or not prosecutors could make a criminal case against the senders and recipients of these e-mails. It’s about the overall quality of Pennsylvania’s system of criminal justice. People’s perceptions matter.

Beemer’s decision to redact the report is damaging to the interests of the general public. Pennsylvania taxpayers fund the justice system, one of the most expensive state government operations in the country. They have every right to expect and demand professional conduct from their elected and appointed state officials. When those standards aren’t met, it’s reasonable for taxpayers — who thus far have paid nearly $400,000 for this report — to expect full and complete information on any improprieties.

Those defending the report’s redaction seem to be under the impression that all the public needs are assurances that these sordid communiques didn’t contain ex parte communications or other direct evidence of exchanges “affecting the administration of justice.”

Whew! Thank goodness. Now all we have to deal with is a collection of state jurists, OAG employees, and other senior officials actively participating in a culture that finds denigrating women and minorities to be an acceptable way to pass the time.

Our guess is that the millions of women and minorities who call Pennsylvania home might find the names of those people — who are their employees — somewhat vital when it comes to drawing informed conclusions about the quality of our state government.