Expungements are different everywhere, but consider the next step of trial and conviction.
If a criminal is convicted of a felony, papers can publish that. If he's then exonerated, continuing to call him a convicted felon in future publications is a legal falsehood.
Saying he was tried, convicted, then exonerated (and possibly expunged), and is not a felon would likely be ok.
Which is why I said it highly depends on how it's said.
Because truth/falsehood determination is going to be decided as a matter of fact by the jury during trial, so intent, deception, and reputation will likely sway jurors. And the standard for a civil trial is the much easier "preponderance of evidence/causality" (as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt" of criminal trials).
Your constitutional right is to be able to talk about it, but that doesn't mean there won't be a cost or penalty or damages for doing so.
As opposed to what many have recently claimed, the constitutional right of free speech does protect even false, hateful, or even threatening speech. That doesn't mean said speech will be free of consequences. Look at the history of reporters being jailed for refusing to name a source. Many times it's their right to do that, and many times they go to jail anyway.
If a criminal is convicted of a felony, papers can publish that. If he's then exonerated, continuing to call him a convicted felon in future publications is a legal falsehood.
Saying he was tried, convicted, then exonerated (and possibly expunged), and is not a felon would likely be ok.
Which is why I said it highly depends on how it's said.
Because truth/falsehood determination is going to be decided as a matter of fact by the jury during trial, so intent, deception, and reputation will likely sway jurors. And the standard for a civil trial is the much easier "preponderance of evidence/causality" (as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt" of criminal trials).
Your constitutional right is to be able to talk about it, but that doesn't mean there won't be a cost or penalty or damages for doing so.
As opposed to what many have recently claimed, the constitutional right of free speech does protect even false, hateful, or even threatening speech. That doesn't mean said speech will be free of consequences. Look at the history of reporters being jailed for refusing to name a source. Many times it's their right to do that, and many times they go to jail anyway.