1. Wayyyyy too problematic. This is essentially a two-tier justice system based on one's popularity. I think I understand the intent is to protect reputations, but it means the law does not apply equally to all people. Besides this, 'fame' can be vague and legal language to distinguish well-known people from those who are not would seem rather arbitrary, if not open to abuse.
2. False accusations, regardless of the crime, should be treated seriously. However, singling out rape accusations instead of an across-the-board sort of law could send the wrong message to actual victims. Many true victims already fear coming forward, being held to a higher standard of scrutiny than any other may prove a greater deterrent for real victims than those who are not (and if this were to be the case, the law would be doing far greater harm than good). If things go so far as court, false claims could result in charges of Perjury. At a minimum, however, I'd insist that dropping charges or withdrawing accusations should not be legally considered evidence of a false accusation (as there may be any number of valid reasons for one to not want to go through with a courtroom battle).
3. Rather than infringing on the Freedom of the Press, I'd suggest a law for strictly fact-based reporting when it comes to crimes (name of accused, date of alleged incident, details revealed by the police, court dates, that sort of thing) and no editorializing. The public does have a right to know these things, but there should be safeguards put in place so the media can't set someone up to be crucified in the court of public opinion. People might do so anyways, but that would be in spite of objective reporting rather than because of journalists' biases.
However, organizations like Fox are not registered as News , but rather Entertainment. That could be a loophole allowing people like Performance Artist Alex Jones and fringe media to go wild, so it may not change anything in the end.
