[rollcat]

IANAL, but in general, doxxing people is just a really mean thing to do.

Convicted criminal? Sure, write a story. In the most hopeful case, the sentence they serve will help reintegrate them with society - even then, it's good to know who you're dealing with.

Proven innocent? Lawful or not, you're now carrying the weight of possibly ruining someone's life even further. Sleep on that.

[seabass-labrax]

In the UK, a story is legally considered libellous if it's written in a way that could harm its subject, even if the facts are true. That means it would be a tort against the convicted criminal to name them if it wouldn't be in the public interest to do so.

[mytailorisrich]

Libel strictly implies false statement and it is a full defence to show that the statement is true:

"It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true." [1]

That has to be the case otherwise it would be unlawful to say or publish anything negative about someone!

Public interest defence applies when the statement published was false.

Note that convicted criminals are always publicly named unless the court forbids it. In that latter case naming the person would still not be libel but contempt of court (which potentially means jail).

[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26

[jampekka]

> Convicted criminal? Sure, write a story. In the most hopeful case, the sentence they serve will help reintegrate them with society - even then, it's good to know who you're dealing with.

Even this is somewhat problematic. There seems to be a widespread idea that "criminality" is somehow an integral feature of some (un)people for whom almost anything goes, their lives being ruined is of no concern (not saying you imply these), and it's crucial to know who have this feature.

Something like this was actually a phrenologically motivated "scientific" view in the 19th century most famously by Lombroso's phrenological and eugenical "theory", but other "biological theories of criminality" are still around. It's not that such views are necessarily widely held, but it was the backdrop of the development of much of criminal policy.

The distorted view of crime and the tragedies it causes for both "innocent" and "criminal" is really sad.

Note: I'm not really arguing against you rollcat here or attributing this thinking to you. Just something tangentially related.

[rollcat]

Yep that was a silly assumption on my part; I've just remembered a story from like 10 years ago. One of my skate buddies, very chill and motivated guy. He's had a terrible accident. He was in his home, mixed alcohol with his new medicine (which he had no idea he mustn't), and suddenly woke up strapped to a hospital bed, guards in the room. Turns out he drove a car and killed a person. He doesn't remember any of that happening, but he's had alcohol in his blood, the verdict was "obviously guilty". He served 2 years in prison, now can't find a job. Sometimes shit happens.