Actually, this is a very good question, RubaDub. And I don't think we have seen a comprehensive answer to it. Couple thoughts:
We should not necessarily limit the question to cases of child abuse; the same principle holds for a wide array of anti-social conduct on a sliding scale. If a guy were reproved for adultery, maybe couples in shaky marriages would want the information so as to avoid working with him in service. That's a trivial example, but I choose it to make the point: there are all sorts of things that people might wish to know about another person because their past actions serve as a signal of all sorts of risk to others.
My view is that the problem centers on 1) the Judicial Committee structure and 2) the invasion of privacy concerns (which are separate, in my understanding, from slander).
The Judicial Committee is not primarily a penitent-minister activity, concerned with the work of the soul. It is primarily a fact finding structure. It finds a person guilty of some sin or not as a matter of fact. It establishes state of mind (repentance) as a matter of fact. It routinely shares its findings with other parties. It asserts it is acting in the interest of the congregation. All of these things make it the sort of thing that might incurr a set of responsibilities much different from those of penitent-minister.
As for invasion of privacy, there are lots of disfellowshipping offenses that may be entirely true but that fall into something that looks like a legal invasion. Fornicating, smoking, taking blood, etc. are precisely the sorts of thing that might be found to be "not of public concern," and this invasive whether they are true or not. For invasion of privacy, truth is not a defense (as I understand the matter).
