there are far more bans on naming people that your infamous cases.
All victims of sexual abuse crimes are protected and others such as in the Hampstead Satanic Hoax there is now ban on naming witness..such as the falsely accused residents .
Your point is valid but that does not mean the law should ignore these matters as so-called "free speech" (it never is) advocates claim.
As in the Hampstead hoax the only way these names can be published is via social media which has got away with murder since the invention of the internet but is now being hauled into line.
Twitter, Facebook etc are now obligated to take down the names and risk prosecution if they don't and will soon probably risk prosecution even by inadvertently allowing fanatics to name people whose identity is protected.
Any person who comes under the jurisdiction will be prosecuted and those who don;t risk being prevented from traveling to the UK.
The recent ban on David Icke on entering Australia (when he visited 2 years earlier) is a good example and I'm reliably told Immigration used his antisemitism as the main reason but there was many more..such as he ludicrous claims certain powerful people run The World and are really lizards ..several had complained about his bizarre claims on his forums and in books and said why should they invest huge sums in Australia when the country allows a man who accuses them of murder, Satanic abuse etc etc to profit int hat country from his falsehoods?. I won't name names but you know who they are.
Same same the wig wearing Milo Whatver His Name is. ( I only mention his toupees which are superb because he arrogantly cl,aims he is incredibly good looking yet a New York hairdresser I know says he's as bald a s badger
)
What you really are saying is this : if a person robs a bank and scarpers to a country with no extradition treaty with the UK then the authorities should just give up seeking them out. It isn't going to happen.
Those who ignore legitimate bans on, say naming people in the UK (and search engines are now required to remove links that name such people from being accessed in the UK) can still face sanction in the future.
## example is that Hampstead case where a nutter who claims he is the "rightful King of England" (there are so mnay contenders) was refused entry to the UK this year after claiming he was coming to seize Buckingham Palace and boot Her Majesty out and then prevented from flying to Ireland.
The real problem here is: those who ignore such court orders and mock the fact that they can only apply in the UK are playing into the hands of legislators that are now itching to govern all aspects of the Internet. The EU is doing exactly that and investigating new laws that protect citizens from unfair exposure.
At present the Internet is the equivalent of the local
Town Hall Notice Board where anyone is allowed to post their
Poison Pen Letters without being held to account.
The general public as usual in it's collective idiocy thinks this will last forever.
Forums 
