Comment by lupire

If, say, a fraud conviction 20 years ago should morally not preclude running a business[0], then the simple solution is to require statements of long past crimes to include the date range. That handles the concern about misleading people not thinking it was recent. If you believe in fresh starts, "Bob was convicted of fraud in 2003" is not defamatory. It's redemptive.

If the motivation for banning facts is to prevent people from making non-PC judgments based on those facts, then what to do about making true statements like "Bob is Jewish", or "Vic's legal name is Vikram", which might cause discrimination? Is that True Defamation?

BTW, True Defamation is illegal even in the modern day, in UK, if the the defendant can prove truth sufficiently, with some recent protection since 2013. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law

In general, making laws to prevent people from doing reasonable things that cause other people to misbehave, is dangerous ground. Usually better to intervene at the stage of the actual misbehavior.