A new scheme to broadcast the names and faces of people arrested for trying to buy and sell sex could mushroom into a full-fledged challenge to U.S. constitutional law. Starting Thursday, a local government access cable television channel will broadcast the names and faces of people arrested for prostitution-related crimes. The first half-hour installment will feature mugshots of alleged purveyors of sex and the customers who offered to pay for it. Supporters of the plan hope that such public humiliation will help efforts to crack down on prostitution. But opponents say it violates the principle of ``innocent until proven guilty,'' a key tenet of U.S. criminal law. ``The city is setting out to punish with ridicule people who have not been convicted of anything,'' said Dick Kurtenbach, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Kansas and western Missouri. ``The presumption of innocence is really turned on its head with this scheme.'' Both supporters and opponents say that although U.S. media groups regularly publish the names of people arrested and charged with crimes, this may be the first time a government entity broadcasts the identities of alleged wrongdoers. ``As far as we can tell, this is the first jurisdiction that's putting on TV names of people arrested. This is a fairly novel approach,'' Kurtenbach said. The plan was the brainchild of City Councilwoman Teresa Loar, who said she hopes it will deter prostitution and the social ills -- drug use, assault and robbery -- that commonly accompany it. ``I'm not here to persecute people. I just want them to know that they run the risk of having their picture on the access channel if they try to hire a prostitute,'' Loar said. Loar said she is aware of ACLU's criticisms, but she counters by saying that arrests are a matter of public record. She noted that a disclaimer will say that those people pictured are innocent until found guilty in a court of law. When asked why the city does not air the names of people actually convicted of prostitution, Loar explained that few arrests in prostitution sting operations actually lead to convictions. ``Showing convictions wouldn't work -- because we don't get any. They (the accused prostitutes and would-be customers) plead their way down and pay a fine,'' Loar said. Loar said she understands the idea of constitutional rights but feels her constituents' rights are more pressing. ``As far as victims' rights go, my concern is my constituents' rights to quality of life. Their rights are being violated every day with this crime,'' Loar said. Constitutional law experts acknowledged that those people whose names and faces wind up on television could sue the city but would probably lose any claims alleging defamation or invasion of privacy. But Doug Linder, law professor at University of Missouri-Kansas City, said it may be possible to claim that the broadcast constitutes a form of punishment, which legally has to be meted out through due process of law. Plaintiffs could sue on the grounds that they were not given due process to defend themselves, Linder said. ``One could argue that it is a form of punishment if the police department or the city is providing their pictures,'' Linder said. ``These people should have the opportunity to prove their innocence. I think there might be a real constitutional claim there.''