So how would that work for types of people who maybe are arrested without being charged as a result of a protected attribute? You mentioned black people, so is it OK that they are disproportionately squeezed out of jobs this way?
According to the constitution, innocence is an intrinsic human property.
> so is it OK that they are disproportionately squeezed out of jobs this way?
I didn't say it was right, but I do believe that looking at it from the perspective of the burden being placed on a company is looking in the wrong direction. The names should not even be released unless convicted or settled--or at earliest at pre-trial (since more evidence can come forward if it's there). Those without charges should not have their name in the public, and that's where the focus should be.
> how would that work for types of people who maybe are arrested without being charged as a result of a protected attribute?
As I said, I am unsure how it works for hiring, but for firing it could be a violation of company policy and that's what the firing is for, not a protected attribute.
Even you working through this makes clear how it is to draw this line though. One extreme is only making names public after a conviction. That line is at least clear, though it does have downsides. Another extreme is making names public as soon as a person has ant interaction with police, similarly that is at least a clear line but has obvious issues.
Lines like this can't be drawn easily. When in doubt inaction from the government should be the default. In this case that would mean the government not publicizing names at all, just process a case and move on.
According to the constitution, innocence is an intrinsic human property.