Michael Jackson trial and the constitutionality of gag orders
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_Melville" rel="nofollow noreferrer">In this page</a>, Wikipedia says that in the Michael Jackson 2005 trial (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Michael_Jackson" rel="nofollow noreferrer">People v. Jackson</a>) the judge:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>put a gag order on both sides</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Erwin Chemerinsky says (<a href="https://youtu.be/O6PGvbryWGA?t=6817" rel="nofollow noreferrer">link</a>, at the time of 1:53:37) that gag orders are unconstitutional.</p>
<p>Which way is which?</p>
<p>Was the injunction the judge released in the Michael Jackson trial unconstitutional? If so, why nobody challenged it?</p>

<p>The two statements are not contradictory.</p>
<p>A court may impose a gag order <em>on the parties</em> to legal proceedings, as in the Michael Jackson trial, but it may not impose a gag order <em>on the press</em> that is covering the proceedings, which is what Chemerinsky is discussing.</p>

united-states constitutional-law us-constitution first-amendment