Can't tell if your question is rhetorical or not, but: Falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is different because it (1) is actually false, (2) leads to an immediate and unambiguous risk of life, and (3) is not potentially of political importance.

The first is the most important in the US for free-speech issues. For instance, "it's true" is considered an absolute defense in cases of slander/libel, no matter how mean spirited or damaging.

> Why can't this be made illegal if yelling "fire" in a theater is?

Yelling “fire” in a theater is not illegal. It was asserted to be the kind of thing the government might permissible prohibit in dicta (which are not themselves authoritative) illustrating the decision rule, without any citation to supporting precedent, in a later-overturned case in which the court allowed what is now recognized as an imperssible restriction on core political speech.

I can’t see how you can prevent someone making a truthful record of history. What are you going to do? Hold a gun to people’s heads and tell them to forget that things have happened?

In a whole lot of countries this information is not readily publicly available in the first place, and privately publishing it means someone has violated the terms under which they were given access.

E.g. in the UK, to even be able to do a check to see if someone is barred from certain types of work, you are required to abide by a long list of terms which goes much further than merely not republishing the data. To request a less comprehensive check requires you to have a compelling need (a specific set of roles). The basic checks can only requested by the person they're about.

Violating the terms comes at the risk of no longer being able to do records check (among other consequences), which may force you to close down your business in the worst case.

Nothing prevents you from making a truthful record of history if you have the data, but lots of things act to prevent most attempts to publish them.

That's fine, but this thread is specifically talking about the US, where all court records are public documents unless specifically sealed by a judge, with justification that can be challenged in court.

Now, publishing expunged records in the US is morally dubious. I don't know the case law in this area, though, so I don't know where it stands on legal grounds.

Do you believe it should be legal for companies to have terms that prevent you from working at a competing company in a similar industry. It is illegal to share much of the information you learn there as well. The big difference is that you aren't meticulously saving every piece of information for easy access at your new company and that you know you're breaking the law if you did share that information. Simply make it illegal to use the data after a certain amount of time and the problem will fix itself.

Side note - "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is not persay illegal, and was actually used in a free speech trial against a man who wrote anti-draft pamphlets.

It's archival of public information. If this is a concern, then maybe that information shouldn't be made public in the first place.

Falsely yelling fire in a theater. Plus that was only a rhetorical point used to justify a ban on pacifically protesting the draft, by emotionally appealing to recent (at the time) tragedies.

should be illegal for anyone to seek such info for prospective employers, renters etc. Free speech? OK, but the company cannot seek it or else...