[iudqnolq]

The UK is a good example of a generally* similarly free country without guaranteed public access to arrest records. This balances the potential benefit to the public from knowing against the definite harm to the accused.

(*There are definitely significant ways each is less free than the other and there's no rigorous way to say which is worse)

[tqi]

I think the person you're replying to is saying that:

- If a government arrests someone, it should be forced to acknowledge both that it happened AND give the reason for arrest

- Media should have the right to report on arrests, without interference from the government.

This protects from abuses of power against for example political opponents. Of course, these same laws make arrests for common crimes problematic for the people being arrested. And I don't think it is feasible to codify an objective line between the two.

[iudqnolq]

Yes and I'm presenting a counterexample of a free country where the media does not have the unlimited right to report on arrests.

[sowbug]

Good point on the media's right to report. Prior restraint is icky except in the most exigent and extreme circumstances.

[sowbug]

Yes, it's a balance. I don't want my government hustling people into vans and disappearing, but I don't want minor indiscretions to become media-amplified scarlet letters, either.

A reasoned discussion begins with an acknowledgment that the public has a right to monitor its government, and that individuals have a right to privacy. Unfortunately, the USA PATRIOT Act substantially dimmed the sunlight on government law-enforcement activity, and the Dobbs decision severely weakened privacy as an emergent constitutional right.

Edit: As I was writing this reply, I came up with an interesting legal theory. The right to publicity is traditionally understood as a celebrity's right to control the commercialization of his or her image. Might we say that the modern attention economy has turned everyone into a potential celebrity, and thus that everyone should be allowed to control the commercial publicity of their persona? This would draw a potentially meaningful line between the public's right to know (which I expect is popular) and the media's right to commercially exploit the salacious details of an accused's crime (which is, sadly, extremely popular; otherwise, it wouldn't be as prevalent as it is today). I'm sure attorneys and legal scholars have already explored this idea.