I've only skimmed the paper, but I didn't find anything that would clearly distinguish between things that harm someone's reputation in a justifiable way, and things that harm it in an unjustifiable way. For example, if the CEO of a startup has previously been convicted multiple times for financial fraud, it would both hurt their reputation and be beneficial to potential investors to know this. But what if it's only one conviction? And a long time ago? It seems like the whole argument comes down to drawing this line, but I didn't see any real attempt to do so.
A lot of the impulse for this paper seems to be based around "the [claimed] right to a fresh start":
Moreover, if reputational interest is understood as a presumption of good
standing, then there is another reason to prohibit true defamation, one that depends upon the presumption, namely what might be called the right to a fresh start. By “a fresh start,” I mean the right to have a misdeed from long ago eventually cease to be part of one’s current reputation, so that it ceases to have any impact on one’s life. ... The interest in a fresh start stands against this veritable life sentence—an interest, instead, in being treated as a new person, no longer associated with a misdeed from long ago.
Yes, if you grant that such a right exists, it might make sense to make it illegal to point out true facts about someone's past. And I can easily see why many individuals would want a "fresh start". But does society as a whole benefit from having such a right? I'm far from convinced that it should be any sort of universal right, and don't see any good way to define when it's applicable and when it's not. Are there good solutions for this problem somewhere?
A lot of the impulse for this paper seems to be based around "the [claimed] right to a fresh start":
Moreover, if reputational interest is understood as a presumption of good standing, then there is another reason to prohibit true defamation, one that depends upon the presumption, namely what might be called the right to a fresh start. By “a fresh start,” I mean the right to have a misdeed from long ago eventually cease to be part of one’s current reputation, so that it ceases to have any impact on one’s life. ... The interest in a fresh start stands against this veritable life sentence—an interest, instead, in being treated as a new person, no longer associated with a misdeed from long ago.
Yes, if you grant that such a right exists, it might make sense to make it illegal to point out true facts about someone's past. And I can easily see why many individuals would want a "fresh start". But does society as a whole benefit from having such a right? I'm far from convinced that it should be any sort of universal right, and don't see any good way to define when it's applicable and when it's not. Are there good solutions for this problem somewhere?