[benesch]

True, but a restriction on printing the names of criminals and victims would be considered a "content-based restriction," which are subject to strict scrutiny.

There is an established legal basis for allowing publication of victim's names: "Thus, it is ordinarily unconstitutional for a state to proscribe a newspaper from publishing the name of a rape victim, lawfully obtained. This is because there ordinarily is no compelling governmental interest in protecting a rape victim’s privacy" (4). IANAL, but permission to print criminal's names (which are obtained legally) follows from similar logic.

[0]: Congressional Research Service: Exceptions to the First Amendment: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf

[rhizome]

Key term: "ordinarily."

[benesch]

Right, so "in the majority of rapes." Which extends to the "majority of crimes."

[rhizome]

"Ordinarily" also implies that it's subject to change. There's nothing inherent in the law that prevents the change being discussed, other than the status quo.