Just to follow up for clarification, I'm not disputing what you're saying. Would it be more reasonable, however, to suggest that the aggrieved party have the option of whether or not they wanted that information released? We all know that sometimes if a charge is laid, even though it's proven baseless, people say that if a person was charged he has to be guilty. I wouldn't want that information to be out there if I were the aggrieved party, because some people would still think there had to be something there. Why would that person make that accusation unless there were something there? But if it were my option and, as you suggest, it might help defend my reputation by having this information in the public, fine, let it be my option.
We took a more cautious approach by saying that if the information was out there, some people might believe there was substance, an element of truth in it, and that would harm the person's reputation. We just didn't want to see that chance taken.