Innocent until proven guilty, and the same goes for the court of public opinion.
There is a big difference between being caught in the act and charged following an investigation.
Currently Europe is moving/has moved to an extreme position beyond common sense as it has done on several other issues based on "good intentions".
In some cases there is also a pressure to charge and go to trial just based on accusations (e.g. rape cases), which is another issue.
There's no good from this only witch hunts. Something more common more recently in the anglosphere too.
There's no good from this only figurative village mobs and witch hunts.
From my experience something culturally more common in the anglosphere too.
Public shaming of people at trial is incompatible with the belief in rehabilitation.
Being labeled as "a criminal" for sure hinders rehabilitation. It reduces opportunities and probably affects identity.
Based on how crime and offenders are publicly discussed in the US, it seems there's very little interest in rehabilitation, except if the person is of high status. Per my common sense the US culture is often just plain cruel with people revelling in others' suffering if they are labeled as "outsiders".
This is to some extent true in the UK as well. Pubic figures are likely to lose their income if convicted of a crime, whereas someone in a less visible or responsible profession is more likely to be able to continue working immediately after serving their sentence (or during, if the sentence is non-custodial). This is therefore considered a mitigating factor during sentencing.
One result of this is that the law can sometimes appear to be more lenient on celebrities or other notable individuals, but it is really just making the system equitable so that the sentence has the same effect regardless of the criminal's personal situation.
What is the purpose for publishing the named?
Convicted criminal? Sure, write a story. In the most hopeful case, the sentence they serve will help reintegrate them with society - even then, it's good to know who you're dealing with.
Proven innocent? Lawful or not, you're now carrying the weight of possibly ruining someone's life even further. Sleep on that.
"It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true." [1]
That has to be the case otherwise it would be unlawful to say or publish anything negative about someone!
Public interest defence applies when the statement published was false.
Note that convicted criminals are always publicly named unless the court forbids it. In that latter case naming the person would still not be libel but contempt of court (which potentially means jail).
Even this is somewhat problematic. There seems to be a widespread idea that "criminality" is somehow an integral feature of some (un)people for whom almost anything goes, their lives being ruined is of no concern (not saying you imply these), and it's crucial to know who have this feature.
Something like this was actually a phrenologically motivated "scientific" view in the 19th century most famously by Lombroso's phrenological and eugenical "theory", but other "biological theories of criminality" are still around. It's not that such views are necessarily widely held, but it was the backdrop of the development of much of criminal policy.
The distorted view of crime and the tragedies it causes for both "innocent" and "criminal" is really sad.
Note: I'm not really arguing against you rollcat here or attributing this thinking to you. Just something tangentially related.