In what civilized society are criminals tried, convicted, and executed on the basis of public opinion?
I'm not saying that this particular case is worthy of a gag order, but the theoretical justification seems completely sound to me.
I also find your appeal to "human factors" to be rather vague. Human factors often include things like blind rage and thirst for vengeance. These are not things to build a legal system (or really, a society) on.
My point is exactly that they are convicted and sentenced by the court system, not the public. For this reason the public have no need to learn their names in very prejudicial cases.
That said, this would have to be very strictly applied as it does interact problematically with the first amendment. As I said, I'm not sure this specific case warrants it.
That sort of mob vigilantism is loosely coupled with actual guilt. It's more about tossing out a name and some kind of accusation, with people only sometimes checking if it's true before acting. Naming people at all is a problem, the additional factor of guilt is far less of one.
I'm not saying that this particular case is worthy of a gag order, but the theoretical justification seems completely sound to me.
I also find your appeal to "human factors" to be rather vague. Human factors often include things like blind rage and thirst for vengeance. These are not things to build a legal system (or really, a society) on.