Seems like a very dangerous road to go down.

My parents abused me, however, they were never convicted of a crime in a court of law because nobody ever reported them. The statue of limitations has almost certainly passed by now so they are unable to be convicted. Are you suggesting it should be illegal for me to say that my parents abused me?

Same with Bill Cosby's accusers, the statue of limitations has passed on all of those. Should those women really not be legally allowed to have their voices heard?

I can't see this leading anywhere except an authoritarian regeme where court proceedings are conducted in secret - after all, the suspect is being publicly accused on crime in court.

I think losteric was proposing a confidentiality rule that would only apply to the government, not to private citizens.

and government employees never reveal high-interest confidential information /s

And what happens when the false conviction is overturned?

In that case make it required by law to publish apology following same format as was the original article. Did you print the false claim on title page of newspaper? Same place, same size for and apology. Same with web articles. That should at least make it searchable by engines.

That information has already been dissiminated. And usually has a higher hit-rate than any correction.

We know employers can and have discriminated against individuals where convictions have been overturned.

Relevancy is a problem that firmly falls under Google's responsibility... and businesses must be punished for discriminating over incomplete background checks.

However, I don't think the false conviction should be hidden - what if they were guilty and there's a crimes down the road? That information could be useful for the public.

Saying "X was convicted of Y" is not a "false claim," when X really was convicted of Y. If X's conviction is later overturned, that's additional information, but it doesn't make the original information false.

Nobody owes anyone an apology.

This is not a universally adopted solution, and for good reason. Publishing the suspect's name/face as well as the details of the alleged crime encourages witnesses to come forward. Plus, from a free speech perspective, it seems crazy to criminalize the publishing of true information, especially when it directly relates to public safety and the government's exercise of its police powers.

Saying investigators are interested in the details surrounding individuals at the time of a crime (and presenting those individuals, not even as suspects, but merely as 'persons for which additional information is desired') is a truthful and accurate statement and does not assert any actual accusation of guilt. As such a fact it should be part of the public record regarding such a matter.

Society will treat you as a convicted criminal even if you're a suspect.

Publishing names and faces as established criminals is inherently contradictory with an impartial jury of your peers.

Faces, I can see that but journalists must be very explicit... "This is the suspect who allegedly did xyz".