Good questions.

It’s a delicate balancing act between the first amendment and the accused’s due process rights.

I think the press should be able to publish whatever they choose to publish with the understanding that if it’s untrue they could be sued for libel.

What I think is unconstitutional is when the police collaborate with the press to publish the names of the accused in order to chill future criminal activity. When they do this they are intentionally giving the impression that being arrested for a crime is the equivalent of being convicted of a crime.

The incident that led to his arrest does not involve any actual “victim” (since he was charged with soliciting a “prostitute,” who was in fact an undercover police officer deliberately trying to attract such solicitations.)

But would you feel the same way about publicizing the arrest and mugshot of an individual accused of a string of crimes that, if proven, did have victims? In our community, there have been several highly publicized arrests for violent crimes where additional victim-witnesses to similar crimes came forward only after it was publicized that the accused perpetrator was behind bars and unlikely to get out for some time. The publicity could be a problem for a fair trial, but that can be addressed by a change of venue.

In one case, the accused was a school district employee allegedly found with an explosive device in his office. After he was put behind bars, a number of people who had previously been intimidated by him came forward with information that suggests that the school district officials should have been keeping a much closer eye on him.

Yeah, just what we need.