"Prior restraints—judicial orders that proactively prohibit people from talking, rather than allowing for after-the-fact litigation over what was said—are presumptively unconstitutional. Not allowing a broad swath of speech is antithetical to the First Amendment—and further, such an approach is generally overbroad, because speech at the edges of the gag order might be chilled. This is in contrast to a post-trial defamation suit against that newspaper for what it published about the trial, which allows for more procedural protections and less chilling, and is therefore less susceptible to scrutiny under the First Amendment."