Your scenario had occurred to me, and it’s not wildly improbable. But I don’t think we should form public policy, especially if our adjustments might be disharmonious with the Constitution, on the basis of any scenarios that we can dream up. In this case the accused already knows where she lives, and any imagined affect on her security by publishing her address depends on supposition.

We should form public policy on the basis of evidence – that is to say, models that have high explanatory power and confidently predict reality correctly.

We have policy around nuclear attacks that aren't based on actual nuclear attacks. There are policies around preventing certain people from being assassinated even if nobody's assassinated them yet. If “swatting” is something that we know happens in this sort of case, we should review our procedures around preventing it if circumstances change in a way that we could reasonably expect would increase swatting.

The accused isn't always the only threat to the victim; even if they are put behind bars, they may often have associations to other perpetrators yet to be found.

In any case, this logic is tantamount to:

"We don't see any immediate threat to posting the first 3 digits of victim's SSN in the transcript, and they don't have any ID theft criminals yet, so let's just post the first 3 digits for the hell of it."

Residential address is equally unnecessary. No need to post their address for the hell of it.