Justice is vengeance, to start off with. We can have a very long discussion on the justification for criminal prosecution, but most people accept that vengeance (or retribution, if you prefer) is a large part of it.

You seem to assume that guilty people will be prosecuted and punished swiftly and fairly. You also assume that if people don't press charges, it is because they don't want to, or because the accused is innocent.

Perhaps, in your world view, those assumptions are actually true. If you believe that a court's verdict is absolute truth, then it cannot be otherwise. Anyone who is convicted must be guilty, anyone who is acquitted must be innocent.

I'd offer a different view. Because of the far-reaching authority of the state and the consequences, a conviction must be beyond reproach. In dubio pro reo. That does not mean that the public has no right to know whatsoever of accusations that don't reach a guilty verdict.

In your world, the justice system would be free to convict or acquit with impunity. Nobody would ever be able to report on any mistakes made by any court. How would you prove it, how could any investigative journalism be checked, if no names could be provided?

Beyond that, I fail to see what purpose criminalization of free press would serve that isn't already served by libel laws.