I think most people are aware of the risks of a false allegation of rape - this can be reputation and career destroying for the man accused of it; however, media, particularly Western media, often protect the identity of the accuser while identifying the accused (note: not guilty, just accused).

The thing is, in most Western nations, the legal system presumes innocence until proven guilty; an allegation of sexual assault is not a conviction, but the allegation itself does more than enough damage, and is a bell that cannot be unwrung, even if the person is found innocent. To me, it seems that the accused have as much right to identity protection as the victim, until such time as they have actually been found guilty, at which time media can plaster their names all over the place.

Even if the police/Crown/DA/QC/whatever recommend charges, it is not the same as a guilty conviction, and until that verdict is rendered, the accused should have every opportunity to clear their name during the trial without being convicted in the court of public opinion (I cite examples such as Kobe Bryant, Jake Virtanen, Mason Greenwood, and other high-profile celebrities/sports stars/musicians whose reputations and even careers are at risk over these sorts of allegations, some of which come down to "buyer's remorse).

As far as I see it, this practice needs to change - the justification of protecting the public is not a good enough reason in my opinion to start broadcasting names; if there is a legitimate concern about public safety, hold the person until their trial, and after they are found guilty, broadcast their names everywhere.

Just my two coppers.