It would probably pass muster if framed in terms of defamation. Making it statutorily defamation (i.e. you automatically lose civil suits, regardless of your intent to defame) to distribute someone’s arrest record without also distributing their conviction record with equal prominence would probably strike the right balance.

It needs to be criminal so the people that do it offshore can be nailed.

Unlikely. The Constitution contains no exceptions for defamation.

Defamation is already a civil tort. Are you under the impression that the First Amendment protects defamatory speech from being litigated as defamation?

Can't it? Apparently the US government can compel you to act as though your website's records haven't been seized – which includes publishing your weekly “our records haven't been seized” notice.

That is not legally correct. There is no such law or precedent. If you disagree then please provide a specific citation.

> In September 2014, U.S. security researcher Moxie Marlinspike wrote that "every lawyer I've spoken to has indicated that having a 'canary' you remove or choose not to update would likely have the same legal consequences as simply posting something that explicitly says you've received something."[15][16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary

Those are informal opinions and carry no legal weight.