Can a media organization repeatedly dox a past arrest insinuating conviction without clarifying if the arrest ever became a conviction?

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW: QUESTION #1a: Can a media lawfully portray this ONE TIME Second Degree Breach of Peace arrest as “POLICE: Man Harassed Women For Years” (not even written to be “alleged”) given the fact that the HARASS terminology (COURSE OF CONDUCT BEHAVIORS AND ACTUAL LAWS) are not part of the Second Degree Breach Of Peace Statute? : QUESTION tb: Can a media lawfully portray this ONE TIME Second Degree Breach of Peace arrest as “POLICE: Man Harassed Women For Years” (not even written to be “alleged”) given the fact that the HARASS terminology are not part of anything in someone's past i.e. long past closed “cases” devoid of arrests of any kind (or as the Second Circuit CIVIL Court of Appeals writes the past “totality of Lawrence’s conduct”) with statute of limitations in effect? QUESTION #1e: Can a media lawfully portray this ONE TIME Second Degree Breach of Peace arrest as “POLICE: Man Harassed Women For Years” (not even written to be “alleged”) given the fact that the HARASS terminology is NOT DEPLOYED BY THE WARRANT WRITING OFFICER? QUESTION #1d: Can a media lawfully portray this ONE TIME Second Degree Breach of Peace arrest as “POLICE: Man Harassed Women For Years” (not even written to be “alleged”) given the fact that the HARASS terminology are NOT part of ANY PHANTOM WOMEN WORDING (NO NAMES OR QUOTES)? QUESTION # le: Can a media lawfully portray this ONE TIME Second Degree Breach of Peace arrest as “POLICE: Man Harassed Women For Years” (not even written to be “alleged”) given the fact that the mentioned past "cases" being interpreted within Warrant had actual "Police" investigations that showed NO PROBABLE CAUSE, AND NO POLICE ACTION with Statute of Limitations fully in effect for decades? QUESTION #1f: Can the Second Circuit Court of Appeals allow and empower the extreme 4 years and counting characterization of “POLICE: Man Harassed Women For Years” (not even written to be “alleged”) and “haunting women” and then 1 year later “Man Accused of Harassing Women” to someone (James Lawrence) based on a One Count of Second Degree Breach of Peace Warrant narrative “follow and get into personal space” that mentions prior KNOWN unproven and unproveable past investigated , ii long closed cases resulting in no arrest of any kind (or as the court writes past “totality of Lawrence’s conduct”) with statute of limitations in effect all the while the author of the Warrant states in a sworn Deposition that he not only never deployed the words “stalk” or “harass” but never thought of using this . words of “stalk” or “harass”? QUESTION #2: Is not the opinion aka Deposition of the Warrant writing officer enough to allow for a jury of our peers since Hearst has been given multiple opportunities since the Deposition to remove their unproven and unprovable coverage free of any lawsuit? QUESTION #3: Ifa media company are to choose different words than the Warrant (chosen words that are actual criminal laws) should they not be obligated to have actual names with actual quotes from a woman/women accusing deploying the harassing terminology? QUESTION #4: Is not a case (James Lawrence v. Altice/News 12) where a media organization chose their own words (stalk) that deviated_from the Warrant’s wording and actual arresting charge, and then this media organization (Altice) made remedial efforts by removing all their unprovable coverage within one day, radically let alone substantially different than a case (James Lawrence v. Hearst) where a media organization who themselves chose their own wording (harass) deviating from the Arrest Warrant wording and actual charge, and refusing to remove any aspects of their unprovable coverage thereby their coverage being alive for 4+ years and counting? QUESTION #5: Is not 1 day different than 4+ years? AND are not the Damages from 4+ years more extreme and worthy of a jury than 1 day? QUESTIONS #6: