I think it's examples like this that show the extreme interpretation of the US free speech law. The US doesn't protect all speech and allows some things to be b

I think it's examples like this that show the extreme interpretation of the US free speech law. The US doesn't protect all speech and allows some things to be banned. Cases like this should fall under nonprotected speech. The harm that can done time innocent person without any due process of a fair legal trial and with no effective ability to argue your case far outweighs the harm to a newspaper in banning them mentioning the name. You should be allowed report all the rest of the details of this horrific crime, of course, but you should not be legally allowed to identify the accused unless it was very much in the public interest (e.g. if it was a politician who did it).