Publishing the names of the accused

[Wisconsin9]

If you had been reading my earlier posts, you already know my stance on the issue. The government punishing victims for speaking out about what happened to them is the worst of the possible outcomes. Much better for freedom of speech and the press to remain protected.

How would you justify punishing a victim of crime for exercising their right to tell their story and perhaps protect other potential victims?

I would justify it by the fact that, firstly, slander/libel are illegal, and you can't expect to be allowed to relentlessly smear someone, potentially turning the public against them without having to provide a shred of evidence. If you have a legitimate grievance, you take it to the police and let them conduct an investigation.

And I have read your posts, and I don't know how you justify the harm done to those who, being falsely accused, are exposed to the court of public opinion, where one is guilty until proven innocent.

And is usually still guilty afterwards.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

If you had been reading my earlier posts, you already know my stance on the issue. The government punishing victims for speaking out about what happened to them is the worst of the possible outcomes. Much better for freedom of speech and the press to remain protected.

How would you justify punishing a victim of crime for exercising their right to tell their story and perhaps protect other potential victims?

I would justify it by the fact that, firstly, slander/libel are illegal, and you can't expect to be allowed to relentlessly smear someone, potentially turning the public against them without having to provide a shred of evidence. If you have a legitimate grievance, you take it to the police and let them conduct an investigation.

And I have read your posts, and I don't know how you justify the harm done to those who, being falsely accused, are exposed to the court of public opinion, where one is guilty until proven innocent.

Libel and slander aren't relevant to what you were asked. Telling the truth isn't slander or libel.

If you have a legitimate grievance, then you have it regardless of whether or not a person is ever convicted.

If you had actually read my posts, then you would know I haven't justified slandering anyone. As a matter of fact, I condemn it.

[Noraika]

And is usually still guilty afterwards.

Irrelevant. If they are proven guilty before their name is disclosed, then the desired effect is still the same, while eliminating the complications of other exceptions, or cases outside the usual. The likelihood of the accused being guilty literally has no bearing on discussion on this topic.

In addition, such an argument is also rather faulty reasoning.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

I would justify it by the fact that, firstly, slander/libel are illegal, and you can't expect to be allowed to relentlessly smear someone, potentially turning the public against them without having to provide a shred of evidence. If you have a legitimate grievance, you take it to the police and let them conduct an investigation.

And I have read your posts, and I don't know how you justify the harm done to those who, being falsely accused, are exposed to the court of public opinion, where one is guilty until proven innocent.

Libel and slander aren't relevant to what you were asked. Telling the truth isn't slander or libel.

If you have a legitimate grievance, then you have it regardless of whether or not a person is ever convicted.

If you had actually read my posts, then you would know I haven't justified slandering anyone. As a matter of fact, I condemn it.

They very much are relevant. Perhaps you need to reiterate your point, because either I'm failing to understand or you are communicating poorly:

I think that the government should stay out of it.

Freedom of speech and of the press should guarantee that people can go to the press with their story and that those stories can be published.

If the press print a story saying "X molested Y" and that is not true, that is libel. Unless you think the press will somehow be able to sift, with perfect reliability, the true stories from the false, as Newsnight spectacularly failed to do in the McAlpine case.

So should people be able to go to the press with an untrue story?

[RawHein]

If the press print a story saying "X molested Y" and that is not true, that is libel. Unless you think the press will somehow be able to sift, with perfect reliability, the true stories from the false, as Newsnight spectacularly failed to do in the McAlpine case.

So should people be able to go to the press with an untrue story?

Similarly, should the press not be held accountable to the accuracy and objectivity of their articles? Should they be allowed to write a piece about an accusation while only showing the accuser's evidence and denying any coverage to the accused? Note that in the UK anyone who has an article written about them has a right-of-reply allowing them to defend themselves in the same article, though of course they're rarely given more than a few lines.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

Libel and slander aren't relevant to what you were asked. Telling the truth isn't slander or libel.

If you have a legitimate grievance, then you have it regardless of whether or not a person is ever convicted.

If you had actually read my posts, then you would know I haven't justified slandering anyone. As a matter of fact, I condemn it.

They very much are relevant. Perhaps you need to reiterate your point, because either I'm failing to understand or you are communicating poorly:

I think that the government should stay out of it.

Freedom of speech and of the press should guarantee that people can go to the press with their story and that those stories can be published.

If the press print a story saying "X molested Y" and that is not true, that is libel. Unless you think the press will somehow be able to sift, with perfect reliability, the true stories from the false, as Newsnight spectacularly failed to do in the McAlpine case.

So should people be able to go to the press with an untrue story?

Obviously they are not relevant since they apply the same either way. They don't change anything related to what we are discussing.

I opposed punishing people for telling the truth...that pretty decidedly is not the same as supporting lying.

I think the press should have enough command of the language to be able to say 'according to Person A, Person B did _____....'

[Esternial]

They very much are relevant. Perhaps you need to reiterate your point, because either I'm failing to understand or you are communicating poorly:



If the press print a story saying "X molested Y" and that is not true, that is libel. Unless you think the press will somehow be able to sift, with perfect reliability, the true stories from the false, as Newsnight spectacularly failed to do in the McAlpine case.

So should people be able to go to the press with an untrue story?

Obviously they are not relevant since they apply the same either way. They don't change anything related to what we are discussing.

I opposed punishing people for telling the truth...that pretty decidedly is not the same as supporting lying.

I think the press should have enough command of the language to be able to say 'according to Person A, Person B did _____....'

Frankly even if the press did use the proper hedging I assume particular individuals and less reliable sources would regurgitate the same news in less neutral terms.

People's mentality is just a big issue. For some reason a lot of people aren't quite as receptive to hearing news about someone being vindicated, and the media doesn't appear to put as much work into distributing that news because "Alleged rapist is innocent" doesn't quite catch as much attention as "Man possibly raped a dozen women".

So yes and no. The press is capable of using hedging but a big chunk of it is just incapable of using it, partially because the public they cater to doesn't like to read "neutral" news.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

They very much are relevant. Perhaps you need to reiterate your point, because either I'm failing to understand or you are communicating poorly:



If the press print a story saying "X molested Y" and that is not true, that is libel. Unless you think the press will somehow be able to sift, with perfect reliability, the true stories from the false, as Newsnight spectacularly failed to do in the McAlpine case.

So should people be able to go to the press with an untrue story?

Obviously they are not relevant since they apply the same either way. They don't change anything related to what we are discussing.

I opposed punishing people for telling the truth...that pretty decidedly is not the same as supporting lying.

I think the press should have enough command of the language to be able to say 'according to Person A, Person B did _____....'

You seem to be starting from the premise that the people making the accusation are neither lying nor mistaken. If they don't have evidence to back up their allegations, someone, either the paper or person A, can be sued for defamation (which is why they'll say allegedly). If they do have evidence, this could all be resolved in a court of law rather than the court of public opinion.

So should someone be able to make public, false accusations without suffering legal consequences? If person A in your example is lying, should the law just let them get on with it?

[Infected Mushroom]

Yes but red flags are raised when someone is charged with a crime and proceedings are in progress

If proceedings are in progress, then they're probably either still in jail, or the police are keeping an eye on them. It doesn't seem particularly likely that they'll be able to get away with anything during a trial.

they could get away on a technicality in court but be in fact a dangerous person

it should be my right to be aware that they were once tried for a crime; I should have the right to draw my own conclusions and to take my own precautions for my own safety as I see fit

the court can draw its own conclusions, and I can draw my own while being in a position to safeguard my own life

[Anywhere Else But Here]

If proceedings are in progress, then they're probably either still in jail, or the police are keeping an eye on them. It doesn't seem particularly likely that they'll be able to get away with anything during a trial.

they could get away on a technicality in court but be in fact a dangerous person

it should be my right to be aware that they were once tried for a crime; I should have the right to draw my own conclusions and to take my own precautions for my own safety as I see fit

the court can draw its own conclusions, and I can draw my own while being in a position to safeguard my own life

This perception that the acquitted "got off on a technicality" is exactly why publishing the names of the accused is so dangerous. Facing even an investigation, let alone charges, can be ruinous, because the public tends to assume you're guilty if you can't provide cast iron proof that you are not.

In fact, what you'll find is that the acquitted tend to be acquitted because they can't be proven guilty, much as the innocent can't be proven guilty.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

Obviously they are not relevant since they apply the same either way. They don't change anything related to what we are discussing.

I opposed punishing people for telling the truth...that pretty decidedly is not the same as supporting lying.

I think the press should have enough command of the language to be able to say 'according to Person A, Person B did _____....'

You seem to be starting from the premise that the people making the accusation are neither lying nor mistaken. If they don't have evidence to back up their allegations, someone, either the paper or person A, can be sued for defamation (which is why they'll say allegedly). If they do have evidence, this could all be resolved in a court of law rather than the court of public opinion.

So should someone be able to make public, false accusations without suffering legal consequences? If person A in your example is lying, should the law just let them get on with it?

Why would I seem to be saying something with no relation to anything I've actually posted?

If a person has committed a crime, then they are guilty of the crime regardless of whether the leave lots of evidence or little.

You say it can all be handled in court...do you think everyone who ever commits a crime leaves behind evidence which will point to them beyond a reasonable doubt?

If someone breaks then law in lying about you, then report them for the crime and take them to civil court to boot. The issue has no relevance to my argument of the topic.


Let's make an example: Person A responds to a craigslist ad about a lawnmower for sale. When they meet, the seller (Person B) beats Person A with a brick and steals their money. Person A reports it to police, but there's never enough evidence found to convict Person B. Do you think the government should punish Person A if Person A publishes an article in the local paper warning people to be careful when meeting to buy/sell things and specifically warning them about Person B with a description of the crime committed?

[Infected Mushroom]

they could get away on a technicality in court but be in fact a dangerous person

it should be my right to be aware that they were once tried for a crime; I should have the right to draw my own conclusions and to take my own precautions for my own safety as I see fit

the court can draw its own conclusions, and I can draw my own while being in a position to safeguard my own life

This perception that the acquitted "got off on a technicality" is exactly why publishing the names of the accused is so dangerous. Facing even an investigation, let alone charges, can be ruinous, because the public tends to assume you're guilty if you can't provide cast iron proof that you are not.

In fact, what you'll find is that the acquitted tend to be acquitted because they can't be proven guilty, much as the innocent can't be proven guilty.

They have a right to be free (not in prison) if they are found not guilty.

And I have a right to be aware of both the proceedings (while they are in progress) and of the final results of the proceedings because such things may affect my own safety. I am then allowed to draw my own conclusions and to take my own actions so long as these actions don't violate any laws.

Just because they are found Not Guilty or they are yet to be found Guilty/Not Guilty doesn't mean that I should be denied information that could keep me safe and alive.

[Kazarogkai]

Despite my tough on crimes views I am personally against publishing the names of the accused unless the person consents. The person in questions privacy should be maintained and should be assumed innocent until proven guilty, trial by media prevents this as such it should be prevented in the first place. If a person is innocent they should be able to go on with their life without any fear of their life being potentially ruined from a simple accusation.

I have the same opinion of public records of crimes committed,if the person has paid their debt, is remorseful for their actions, and is rehabilitated we shouldn't continue to punish(via discrimination) after the fact. That just simply prevents the people in question from moving on with their lives and attempting to reform themselves. Forgiveness after the fact is essential to a proper judicial system, "forgive and forget" as the old saying goes. Mind you records should be kept of crimes committed, it's just I do not think they should be publicly viewable to everyone outside law enforcement and government.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

You seem to be starting from the premise that the people making the accusation are neither lying nor mistaken. If they don't have evidence to back up their allegations, someone, either the paper or person A, can be sued for defamation (which is why they'll say allegedly). If they do have evidence, this could all be resolved in a court of law rather than the court of public opinion.

So should someone be able to make public, false accusations without suffering legal consequences? If person A in your example is lying, should the law just let them get on with it?

Why would I seem to be saying something with no relation to anything I've actually posted?

If a person has committed a crime, then they are guilty of the crime regardless of whether the leave lots of evidence or little.

You say it can all be handled in court...do you think everyone who ever commits a crime leaves behind evidence which will point to them beyond a reasonable doubt?

If someone breaks then law in lying about you, then report them for the crime and take them to civil court to boot. The issue has no relevance to my argument of the topic.


Let's make an example: Person A responds to a craigslist ad about a lawnmower for sale. When they meet, the seller (Person B) beats Person A with a brick and steals their money. Person A reports it to police, but there's never enough evidence found to convict Person B. Do you think the government should punish Person A if Person A publishes an article in the local paper warning people to be careful when meeting to buy/sell things and specifically warning them about Person B with a description of the crime committed?

You said you oppose people being punished for telling the truth. How do you know who is telling the truth and who isn't?

Let me give you another example. Person C reads an article by person A, who is (as it happens, falsely) claiming that person B beat them with a brick and stole their money. How can person C distinguish your scenario from mine? If there is no evidence, your "honest person telling the truth" is indistinguishable, to person C, from my "lying person lying".

So yes, person A, if B sues them for making a claim that they cannot support, should be punished, because libel is illegal.

[Gristol-Serkonos]

I am just glad Publication Bans exist in the Canadian Criminal Code.

[Noraika]

You said you oppose people being punished for telling the truth. How do you know who is telling the truth and who isn't?

Let me give you another example. Person C reads an article by person A, who is (as it happens, falsely) claiming that person B beat them with a brick and stole their money. How can person C distinguish your scenario from mine? If there is no evidence, your "honest person telling the truth" is indistinguishable, to person C, from my "lying person lying".

So yes, person A, if B sues them for making a claim that they cannot support, should be punished, because libel is illegal.

Most people seem to be of the opinion that innocent until proven guilty is a relative statement it seems. If a person is found innocent of a crime then it doesn't matter if their being tried is not known. They have been deemed not guilty, and the procedures have made no charges against the individual. The individual is, for all extensive purposes, at that point in time, completely unrelated to the crime they were accused of, and has been found to have, for all extensive purposes, not committed it.

Some appeal to an 'idea' of personal safety, but it sounds more like paranoia if someone thinks that a person who had been tried and found innocent for a crime should be treated the same, and have the same damage to their reputation as a member of the community and law-abiding citizen done, as a criminal that is convicted.

It is not the right of citizens to come up with their own judgments upon the proceedings of the courts unless they are a judge which is determining the outcome of a case. An individual's reputation should not be sacrificed to the court of public opinion, which often times leaps to conclusions based of emotional arguments and circumstantial evidences which would not stand in a court of law. It's frankly none of the peoples business to get involved with legal proceedings, or to know the people involved, unless they are directly connected to the case.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

Why would I seem to be saying something with no relation to anything I've actually posted?

If a person has committed a crime, then they are guilty of the crime regardless of whether the leave lots of evidence or little.

You say it can all be handled in court...do you think everyone who ever commits a crime leaves behind evidence which will point to them beyond a reasonable doubt?

If someone breaks then law in lying about you, then report them for the crime and take them to civil court to boot. The issue has no relevance to my argument of the topic.


Let's make an example: Person A responds to a craigslist ad about a lawnmower for sale. When they meet, the seller (Person B) beats Person A with a brick and steals their money. Person A reports it to police, but there's never enough evidence found to convict Person B. Do you think the government should punish Person A if Person A publishes an article in the local paper warning people to be careful when meeting to buy/sell things and specifically warning them about Person B with a description of the crime committed?

You said you oppose people being punished for telling the truth. How do you know who is telling the truth and who isn't?

By knowing the truth yourself. Sometimes that is possible, and sometimes it is not

Let me give you another example. Person C reads an article by person A, who is (as it happens, falsely) claiming that person B beat them with a brick and stole their money. How can person C distinguish your scenario from mine? If there is no evidence, your "honest person telling the truth" is indistinguishable, to person C, from my "lying person lying".

Person C will have to make the best decision they can based on the information they have.

So yes, person A, if B sues them for making a claim that they cannot support, should be punished, because libel is illegal.

That is called a non sequitur. Libel being illegal isn't relevant to the case I presented, since no libel took place. 'People should be punished for telling the truth' doesn't really follow 'libel is illegal'

I see that you wouldn't even attempt to answer my other questions

[Infected Mushroom]

You said you oppose people being punished for telling the truth. How do you know who is telling the truth and who isn't?

Let me give you another example. Person C reads an article by person A, who is (as it happens, falsely) claiming that person B beat them with a brick and stole their money. How can person C distinguish your scenario from mine? If there is no evidence, your "honest person telling the truth" is indistinguishable, to person C, from my "lying person lying".

So yes, person A, if B sues them for making a claim that they cannot support, should be punished, because libel is illegal.

Most people seem to be of the opinion that innocent until proven guilty is a relative statement it seems. If a person is found innocent of a crime then it doesn't matter if their being tried is not known. They have been deemed not guilty, and the procedures have made no charges against the individual. The individual is, for all extensive purposes, at that point in time, completely unrelated to the crime they were accused of, and has been found to have, for all extensive purposes, not committed it.

Some appeal to an 'idea' of personal safety, but it sounds more like paranoia if someone thinks that a person who had been tried and found innocent for a crime should be treated the same, and have the same damage to their reputation as a member of the community and law-abiding citizen done, as a criminal that is convicted.

It is not the right of citizens to come up with their own judgments upon the proceedings of the courts unless they are a judge which is determining the outcome of a case. An individual's reputation should not be sacrificed to the court of public opinion, which often times leaps to conclusions based of emotional arguments and circumstantial evidences which would not stand in a court of law. It's frankly none of the peoples business to get involved with legal proceedings, or to know the people involved, unless they are directly connected to the case.

No. Every person is entitled to come to their own conclusions and if they wish, look at the facts that are publicly available as well. The court's finding of Guilt or Innocence just carries a legal sanction, but it doesn't take away agency from the people.

[Noraika]

Let me give you another example. Person C reads an article by person A, who is (as it happens, falsely) claiming that person B beat them with a brick and stole their money. How can person C distinguish your scenario from mine? If there is no evidence, your "honest person telling the truth" is indistinguishable, to person C, from my "lying person lying".

Person C will have to make the best decision they can based on the information they have.

So why don't we ensure that this is as easy as possible for Person C, by weeding out all of the 'maybes' and instead giving them the list of actual convictions. Instead of saying 'this may have happened, but there has been no conviction, and the person has not been proven guilty', how about waiting to be able to say ' this happened, this person has been proven guilty, and there has been a conviction.'That would make it far easier to determine what is the truth from fiction, while also making sure that false accusations, or people found not-guilty, don't suffer the vilification of the court of public opinion. Sounds better to me.

This would help people, by making it much easier to be properly educated on the goings on and proceedings, instead of left to their own devises to come up with their own opinions on the matter.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

You said you oppose people being punished for telling the truth. How do you know who is telling the truth and who isn't?

By knowing the truth yourself. Sometimes that is possible, and sometimes it is not

Let me give you another example. Person C reads an article by person A, who is (as it happens, falsely) claiming that person B beat them with a brick and stole their money. How can person C distinguish your scenario from mine? If there is no evidence, your "honest person telling the truth" is indistinguishable, to person C, from my "lying person lying".

Person C will have to make the best decision they can based on the information they have.

So yes, person A, if B sues them for making a claim that they cannot support, should be punished, because libel is illegal.

That is called a non sequitur. Libel being illegal isn't relevant to the case I presented, since no libel took place. 'People should be punished for telling the truth' doesn't really follow 'libel is illegal'

I see that you wouldn't even attempt to answer my other questions

Knowing the name of a fallacy doesn't mean one was used. Libel is absolutely relevant, because you are saying people shouldn't be punished for making defamatory claims.
You keep talking about "the truth", as though it's some intrinsic quality of the Universe that everyone has access to. How is what you term "the government" to decide who is telling "the truth" and who is not? By relying on evidence. If person A did not have enough evidence for B to be convicted, how do you imagine they are going to prove that their comments were not libellous?

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

Person C will have to make the best decision they can based on the information they have.

So why don't we ensure that this is as easy as possible for Person C, by weeding out all of the 'maybes' and instead giving them the list of actual convictions. Instead of saying 'this may have happened, but there has been no conviction, and the person has not been proven guilty', how about waiting to be able to say ' this happened, this person has been proven guilty, and there has been a conviction.'That would make it far easier to determine what is the truth from fiction, while also making sure that false accusations, or people found not-guilty, don't suffer the vilification of the court of public opinion. Sounds better to me.

This would help people, by making it much easier to be properly educated on the goings on and proceedings, instead of left to their own devises to come up with their own opinions on the matter.

Intentionally leaving someone ignorant may make things easier in your view, but it certainly doesn't make it better in mine.

Telling you someone was convicted of something does not give you the same information.

Could you even come up with a way for your method to function without punishing victims who publicly name their victimizer?

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

By knowing the truth yourself. Sometimes that is possible, and sometimes it is not




Person C will have to make the best decision they can based on the information they have.



That is called a non sequitur. Libel being illegal isn't relevant to the case I presented, since no libel took place. 'People should be punished for telling the truth' doesn't really follow 'libel is illegal'

I see that you wouldn't even attempt to answer my other questions

Knowing the name of a fallacy doesn't mean one was used. Libel is absolutely relevant, because you are saying people shouldn't be punished for making defamatory claims.

So you do not know the meaning of libel. Here's a hint: the truth cannot be libel. Libel refers specifically to false statements.

You keep talking about "the truth", as though it's some intrinsic quality of the Universe that everyone has access to.

That is undeniably false. At no point have I ever claimed that any of us can know everything. Actually, my statement on that topic was that sometimes we CANNOT know something.

How is what you term "the government" to decide who is telling "the truth" and who is not? By relying on evidence. If person A did not have enough evidence for B to be convicted, how do you imagine they are going to prove that their comments were not libellous?

They are not obligated to prove their comments are truthful. In order to be convicted of anything, it needs be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by a prosecutor.

So why are you avoiding the questions?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Knowing the name of a fallacy doesn't mean one was used. Libel is absolutely relevant, because you are saying people shouldn't be punished for making defamatory claims.

So you do not know the meaning of libel. Here's a hint: the truth cannot be libel. Libel refers specifically to false statements.

You keep talking about "the truth", as though it's some intrinsic quality of the Universe that everyone has access to.

That is undeniably false. At no point have I ever claimed that any of us can know everything. Actually, my statement on that topic was that sometimes we CANNOT know something.

How is what you term "the government" to decide who is telling "the truth" and who is not? By relying on evidence. If person A did not have enough evidence for B to be convicted, how do you imagine they are going to prove that their comments were not libellous?

They are not obligated to prove their comments are truthful. In order to be convicted of anything, it needs be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by a prosecutor.

So why are you avoiding the questions?

That you don't know how libel laws work suggests that it is you who does not know the meaning of libel. In a defamation case the defendant must prove that their claims are true.

I haven't purposefully avoided any of your questions. If I've missed one, I apologise, please let me know which ones and I shall answer them.

[Luziyca]

If the crime is serious, and they are formally charged with the crime, absolutely. Especially in cases like school shootings, brutal homicides and sexual assault cases, so that we know who to shun from society and have them serve as a warning to others to not go down that path.

[Noraika]

No. Every person is entitled to come to their own conclusions and if they wish, look at the facts that are publicly available as well. The court's finding of Guilt or Innocence just carries a legal sanction, but it doesn't take away agency from the people.

Aye, and you can look at facts and proceedings without names included, and use of generic terms such as 'the witeness who is a professional nurse', 'the suspect', 'the prosecution', et cetera. You can also access the names of people who have been given a legal sanction of guilty, but it is pointless to reveal the names of people being tried, or who have been tried and found innocent, because they have not been proven to even be relevant to the case in of itself. In addition, can you please explain to me why a person found innocent at fair trial should be subject to additional scrutiny, and reputational damage, of the court of public opinion, or treated as if they are still a criminal, when they have clearly been found to have not committed the action by a court of law?

If they are found innocent, then they are not found to have committed the crime in the first place, or have been found to be unrelated to it, and as a result cannot be seen as a criminal, since the courts have determined that they cannot be proven to have committed the crime in the first place. The law is innocent until proven guilty, and if an individual is not found guilty they are innocent, because you cannot go about treating people like criminals on the basis of non-procedural opinion.

If we assume that anyone is suspect of involvement of a crime, even if they have not been proven to be, and even if they have been proven innocent. Then anyone and everyone is, for all we know, a criminal. The courts carry a legal sanction, but that legal sanction is also a process to clarify the involvement of an individual into a case, based upon the evidence provided or other likewise information.

If decisions are not based around the evidence, and we can just arbitrarily call someone guilty or innocent outside of legal proceedings, that would be a pretty ineffective and tyrannical judicial system, because anyone could be convicted, be thrown in jail, or seen as criminal, of any crime, without evidence.

So why don't we ensure that this is as easy as possible for Person C, by weeding out all of the 'maybes' and instead giving them the list of actual convictions. Instead of saying 'this may have happened, but there has been no conviction, and the person has not been proven guilty', how about waiting to be able to say ' this happened, this person has been proven guilty, and there has been a conviction.'That would make it far easier to determine what is the truth from fiction, while also making sure that false accusations, or people found not-guilty, don't suffer the vilification of the court of public opinion. Sounds better to me.

This would help people, by making it much easier to be properly educated on the goings on and proceedings, instead of left to their own devises to come up with their own opinions on the matter.

Intentionally leaving someone ignorant may make things easier in your view, but it certainly doesn't make it better in mine.

Telling you someone was convicted of something does not give you the same information.

Could you even come up with a way for your method to function without punishing victims who publicly name their victimizer?

It is not leaving individuals 'ignorant'. Waiting for proper procedures to take their course reduces ignorance by weeding out the false accusations and 'maybes' and giving people the objective and concrete facts of the matter. Its like how any self-respecting scientific study doesn't publish and act on 'hunches', but actually tests, and properly ensures the accuracy of the data in their studies. You don't publish information unless you confident in them and assured of their legitimacy. Otherwise imagine what would happen in the medical field if we could just operate on hunches without subjecting it to proper objective studies.

Those who levy accusations would have to respect the rules of anonymity, and they would be subject to separate legal proceedings against them for publicly naming those involved with the case, yes. Neither has been found to be victim or victimizer until the issue has been fully addressed in a court of law, and anonymity protects both the accused and the accuser from having their reputation tarnished, or from public prejudices, particularly about crimes which can cause damage to public reputation for the accuser, such as rape or domestic abuse. With that said, in addition to legal penalties on the accuser for violating the law of anonymity, a Right of Reply for the accused should be included, for them to defend themselves in the same venues which the accuser published prior.