Haven't you? If you shut down example.com and they go out and buy example.net and point it back to their website, the registrar would be obliged to do the same thing with example.net, would they not?

Moreover, the ability to get another name is kind of the point: Evaluate the two possible alternatives. On one hand, say it's easy to disseminate the new name (or your IP address) to everyone you may want to communicate with. Then taking away the domain name is ineffective to prevent the alleged misconduct, so there is no reason to do it. On the other hand, suppose that it's difficult to let everyone know the new name. That presents the other problem: A million people come to example.com and you have a platform where you can tell them what's going on and why the accusations against you are false; replace example.com with a page of unproven allegations against you and now your audience has no way to hear your side of the story because they don't know where to find you.

> If I was renting to you, and found out you were cooking and distributing meth in the house, I would evict you. That would not mean you could never live in a house again, just that you can't do your crime on my property.

I don't think you're distinguishing between what you're allowed to do and what the law obliges you to do. If you evict someone because you don't want to rent to a meth cook then that's all well and good, they can go live somewhere else and rent from someone else. But if the law prohibits anyone from renting to someone thought to be a meth cook then where is an accused meth cook supposed to live?