> Journalism serves the current public interest, not history

Thanks. I think my idea was a sort of "idealized journalism". I'll accept your correction.

> The scope of the public interest isn't limited to crimes, that's a ludicrous idea.

I didn't say that. If you can think of another reason for publishing specific activities of private individuals from years ago that serves the public interest—as we agree is journalism's purpose—by all means share it. I could only think of one reason; perhaps there are others.

Generally, naming and shaming private individuals for specific non-criminal acts in the past does not serve the public interest; that's my point. The only interest it serves is that of the mob, or that of a totalitarian government, both of which we will find it harder to avoid the more we tolerate this type of journalism. This is not how a healthy, free society behaves.

>If you can think of another reason for publishing specific activities of private individuals from years ago that serves the public interest

Donald Trump's history of sexual harassment. I don't want a womanizer to be President, even if it was socially acceptable to do a bunch of coke and fuck your EA or teenagers at the time.

Donald Trump is a public figure. My above points concern private individuals.

Replace Donald Trump with my coworkers or boss or CEO.

Yeah, that's where it firmly crosses the line regarding public interest. Whatever we allow to be done to others can just as well happen to us. Never forget:

    First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

This isn't about public interest. This isn't the law. This isn't the government.

This is my (or my company's) interest. You can't tell me who I have to interact with. You are free to speech, but you are not free from consequences. If you're an asshole, people aren't going to want to hang out with you.

And personally, I don't want people who sexually harass or rape their EAs near me or in public office. I don't want people who grab women by the pussy to be my boss or my peer or my employee. That's my choice.

That is your choice, but journalists must be held to a higher standard regarding what they publish about past events concerning private persons—that’s the subject of this thread.

Journalists should be held to a higher standard in the context of whether the content they journal is fact or fiction. As long as they are not committing libel, I want to know if private people are abusers, even if it falls within the law.

There should not be a statute of limitations on truth.

This is primarily talking about actions that are normal and socially acceptable today (or in the time in which they took place). Abuse does not fit that category.