View source for Gag order

{{Short description|Legal order to restrict publication}}
{{for|the Kesha album|Gag Order (album)}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=December 2020}}
{{Censorship sidebar}}
A '''gag order''' (also known as a '''gagging order''' or '''suppression order''') is an order, typically a legal order by a [[court]] or government, restricting information or comment from being made public or passed on to any unauthorized third party. The phrase may sometimes be used of a private order by an employer or other institution.

Uses of gag orders include keeping [[trade secret]]s of a company, protecting the integrity of ongoing police or military operations, and protecting the privacy of victims or minors. Conversely, as their downside, they may be abused as a useful tool for those of financial means to intimidate witnesses and prevent release of information, using the legal system rather than other methods of intimidation. [[Strategic lawsuit against public participation]] (SLAPP) orders may potentially be abused in this way.<ref>{{cite book|pages=302–304|title=Privacy Protection and Computer Forensics, Second Edition|year=2004|series=Computer Protection Series|publisher= Artech House|isbn=978-1580538305|first= Michael A. |last=Caloyannides}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Banking Law & Regulation |year=2011 |first=Michael P.|last=Malloy|publisher=Aspen Publishing|isbn=978-1454801078|pages=14–4|chapter=14: Supervision of Troubled and Failing Institutions}}</ref>

Gag orders are sometimes used in an attempt to assure a fair trial by preventing prejudicial pre-trial publicity, although their use for this purpose is controversial since they are a potentially unconstitutional [[prior restraint]] that can lead to the press's using less reliable sources such as off-the-record statements and second- or third-hand accounts.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Lawyers Have Free Speech Rights Too|author=Chemerinsky, Erwin|journal=Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal|volume=14}}</ref>

In a similar manner, a "gag law" may limit [[freedom of the press]], by instituting [[censorship]] or restricting [[access to information]].<ref name="Rathore"/>

==Examples==

===Australia===
In the summer of 2014, [[WikiLeaks]] revealed the existence of an Australia-wide gagging order, issued 19 June by the [[Supreme Court of Victoria]], to block reporting of bribery allegations involving several international political leaders in the region.<ref>
{{cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/30/wikileaks-australia-super-injunction-bribery-allegations |title=WikiLeaks reveals Australian gagging order over political bribery allegations |last1=Booth |first1=Robert |date=2014-07-30 |work=[[The Guardian]] |access-date=2014-08-27}}</ref>

In December 2018, International news sources have reported that [[Cardinal George Pell]]'s conviction on child-molestation charges is subject to a gag order issued by [[Victoria, Australia]] court Judge [[Peter Kidd]], suppressing coverage of the conviction by Australian media companies.<ref name=postSullivan>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/a-top-cardinals-sex-abuse-conviction-is-huge-news-in-australia-but-the-media-cant-report-it-there/2018/12/12/49c0eb68-fe27-11e8-83c0-b06139e540e5_story.html?noredirect=on|title=A top cardinal's sex-abuse conviction is huge news in Australia. But the media can't report it there.|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=12 December 2018|access-date=16 December 2018}}</ref><ref name= nprChappel>{{cite web|url=https://www.npr.org/2018/12/13/676441949/cardinal-george-pell-reportedly-convicted-of-sex-abuse-amid-gag-order-in-austral|publisher=NPR|title=Cardinal George Pell Reportedly Convicted of Sex Abuse Amid Gag Order in Australia|date=13 December 2018|access-date=16 December 2018}}</ref><ref name=beastCartwright>{{cite web|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/vatican-no-3-cardinal-george-pell-on-trial-for-historical-child-sex-charges/|title=Vatican No. 3 Cardinal George Pell Convicted on Charges He Sexually Abused Choir Boys|work=The Daily Beast |date=28 February 2019|access-date=|first = Lachlan|last = Cartwright|url-access = registration}}</ref><ref name=slateOlmstead>{{cite web|first = Molly|last = Olmstead|url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/cardinal-george-pell-convicted-sex-abuse-australia.html |title=Report: Third-Highest Ranking Vatican Official Convicted on Sex Abuse Charges in Australia|work= Slate |date=12 December 2018 |access-date=}}</ref> In early February 2019, Victoria's DPP, [[Kerri Judd]] QC, wrote to around 50 Australian news publishers, editors, broadcasters, reporters and subeditors, accusing them of breaking the gag order. Kidd told a closed court that some of the breaches were serious and editors faced jail.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Meade |first1= Amanda |title=Dozens of journalists accused of breaking Pell suppression order face possible jail terms |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/feb/26/dozens-of-journalists-accused-of-breaking-pell-trial-suppression-order-face-possible-jail-terms |access-date=26 February 2019 |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=26 February 2019}}</ref>

=== Brazil ===
In 2019, the [[Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (Brazil)|Brazilian Ministry of Environment]] imposed a gag order on environmental enforcement agency [[Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources|Ibama]], ordering it not to respond to press inquiries and to instead redirect them to the ministry's communications office. Ibama's head of communications was forced to resign after weeks of defying the ministry's directive to reroute press queries.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2019-03-13 |title=Brazil's right-wing government puts gag order on environment agency |language=en |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-environment-idUSKCN1QU30I |access-date=2023-01-18}}</ref>

===India===
After the [[2008 Mumbai attacks]] in which live streaming of the event was broadcast, the [[Government of India|Indian government]] proposed a draft law that would gag media outlets broadcasting live pictures during a terrorist event or war, to ensure the safety of any hostages and to protect security operations from hindrance. This has been opposed by [[Media of India|Indian media]] who argue that they have adopted 'self-regulation' during such events and refrain from doing so anyway. It is uncertain if the draft law will be passed.<ref>{{cite news |title=Law readied to gag TV in crises |first=Manoj |last=Mitta |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Law-readied-to-gag-TV-in-crises/articleshow/3944751.cms |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120926001243/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-01-07/india/28028211_1_security-personnel-draft-rules-broadcasters |url-status=live |archive-date=26 September 2012 |newspaper=[[The Times of India]] |date=7 January 2009 |access-date=8 September 2011}}</ref>

===Israel===
In late 2009, Israel issued a gag order against the Israeli media reporting on facts surrounding the [[Anat Kamm–Uri Blau affair]]. The gag order was ultimately subject to widespread criticism and publicity as the details of the case were reported overseas. The scandal centered around leaked documents from the [[Israeli Defense Force]] which suggested the military had engaged in [[extrajudicial killings]].<ref>{{cite news|title=Debate in Israel on Gag Order in Security Leak Case|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07israel.html|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=6 April 2010|access-date=8 September 2011}}</ref>

A gag order concerning the Prisoner X affair prevented Israeli coverage of the topic for more than two years. After numerous foreign media outlets revealed the prisoner's identity and other key facts in February 2013, a court partially lifted the gag order, allowing Israeli media to quote foreign press reports but offer no original reporting.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-partially-lifts-gag-order-on-case-of-dual-citizen-s-prison-suicide.premium-1.503449|title=Ben Zygier affair: Israel partially lifts gag order on case of dual citizen's prison suicide|last=Ravid|first=Barak|date=14 February 2013|work=Haaretz|access-date=14 February 2013}}</ref>

On 13 November 2013 a gag order concerning a famous Israeli singer suspected of sex with girls below the age of consent was issued. While the traditional media did not advertise the name of the singer, social media platforms users like Facebook published the singer name and incriminating photos. On 20 November [[Eyal Golan]] released a press statement announcing he was the suspected singer.<ref>{{cite news |last=Hartman |first=Ben |date=20 November 2013 |title=Eyal Golan revealed to be mystery singer suspected of sex with underage girls |url=https://www.jpost.com/National-News/Gag-order-lifted-Eyal-Golan-is-the-singer-suspected-of-sex-with-underage-girls-332375 |url-status=dead |newspaper= The Jerusalem Post |location=Jerusalem |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150905160937/http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Gag-order-lifted-Eyal-Golan-is-the-singer-suspected-of-sex-with-underage-girls-332375 |archive-date=5 September 2015 |access-date=18 September 2015 }}</ref>

In 2014, a blanket gag order regarding the [[Avera Mengistu|detainment of Avera Mengitsu]] was put into place. It lasted 10 months, until July 9, 2015. Discussions took place in social media forums and some reports were published on foreign websites.<ref name="haaretz">{{cite news |date=July 9, 2015 |title=Two Israelis missing after disappearing into Gaza, one being held by Hamas |work=[[Haaretz]] |url=https://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.663653}}</ref> Some clues about the affair were leaked to different Arabic media outlets, from which the story made its way to international media and was published to [[Tikun Olam (blog)|Tikun Olam]] by blogger Richard Silverstein.<ref>{{cite news |date=July 9, 2015 |title=Two Israelis are held in Gaza |work=[[Maariv]] |url=http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3663949,00.html}}</ref> The gag order was lifted following a request from ''[[Haaretz]]''.<ref name="haaretz" /> The [[Associated Press]] speculated that a statement made by [[Khaled Mashal]] the previous day, in which he spoke of an Israeli request through a European intermediary for the release of "two soldiers and two bodies", may have "forced Israel's hand".<ref name="nyt">{{cite news |date=July 9, 2015 |title=Amid Detente With Hamas, Israel Says 2 Citizens Held in Gaza |work=[[The New York Times]] |agency=[[Associated Press]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/07/09/world/middleeast/ap-ml-israel-palestinians.html |url-status=dead |access-date=April 30, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150712020204/http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/07/09/world/middleeast/ap-ml-israel-palestinians.html |archive-date=July 12, 2015}}</ref>

In August 2017, an Israeli court issued a month-long gag order on a state witness deal regarding the ongoing criminal investigations of Prime Minister [[Benjamin Netanyahu]].{{Citation needed|date=August 2025}}

===Malaysia===
There was speculation that a gag order may be imposed by the [[Malaysian Chinese Association|MCA]] on their press statements before they are released to the public to "ensure maximum effectiveness". Such releases would have to be approved by the president.<ref>[http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsgeneral.php?id=382218 Order To Endorse Press Statements To Maximise Effectiveness, Says Tee Keat], [[Bernama]], 8 January 2009.</ref> These claims in the media were later denied.<ref>[http://www.thesundaily.com/article.cfm?id=29048 Tee Keat: No gag order on MCA bureau chiefs]{{dead link|date=December 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}, ''The Sun Daily'', 8 January 2009. {{Dead link|date=March 2020}}</ref>

=== Myanmar ===
In October 2021, the top attorney for Myanmar's deposed leader [[Aung San Suu Kyi]] claimed that Burmese authorities had issued him a gag order barring him from discussing Aung San Suu Kyi's court proceedings in public because they believed such communications could spark unrest.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2021-10-15 |title=Lawyer for Myanmar's Suu Kyi says he has been issued a gag order |language=en |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/chief-lawyer-myanmars-suu-kyi-says-he-has-been-issued-gag-order-2021-10-15/ |access-date=2023-01-18}}</ref>

=== New Zealand ===
In New Zealand, '''name suppression''' is the commonly used term for a court order preventing the publication of a name or details of a criminal case.<ref name=nz-communitylaw>{{citation|title=Name suppression|language=en-US|work=Community Law NZ|date=2021-07-26|access-date=2024-10-08|url=https://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/chapter-32-the-criminal-courts/how-criminal-cases-begin-pleading-guilty-not-guilty-bail-and-name-suppression/name-suppression/}}</ref> The rules for name suppression are laid out in the [[Criminal Procedure Act 2011]].<ref>{{cite act |author= |article= |title=Criminal Procedure Act |prefix= |index= |date=2011 |periodical= |institution=New Zealand Government |location=Wellington |at=Section 200 |url=https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0081/latest/DLM3360346.html |access-date=2024-10-09}}</ref> Name suppression can be granted automatically for several reasons, including to protect the identities of victims of sex crimes or to protect the identity of children under the age of 17. Name suppression can also be granted at the discretion of the court. Defendants frequently receive name suppression in New Zealand.<ref name=tyler2020>{{citation|title=What's in a name? A history of New Zealand's unique name suppression laws and their impact on press freedom|language=en|work=Pacific Journalism Review : Te Koakoa|publisher=ojs.aut.ac.nz|issn=2324-2035|doi=10.24135/pjr.v26i1.1093|volume=26|issue=1|first1=Francine|last1=Tyler|date=2020-07-31|access-date=2024-10-08|url=https://ojs.aut.ac.nz/pacific-journalism-review/article/view/1093|doi-access=free}}</ref> Often this is due to the court determining that media coverage could cause undue hardship to a defendant, or could prejudice the defendant's right to a fair trial.<ref name=nz-tvnz>{{citation|title=Why people get name suppression in NZ|language=en|work=Re: News|first1=Anna|last1=Harcourt|date=2022-11-07|access-date=2024-10-08|url=https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/11/07/why-people-get-name-suppression-in-nz/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240120231811/https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/11/07/why-people-get-name-suppression-in-nz/|archive-date=20 January 2024|url-status=live}}</ref> Name suppression orders can be (and frequently are) opposed, often by media outlets. Victims of crime can waive their automatic name suppression rights, in order to lift name suppression on the defendant, though this is uncommon.<ref>{{citation|title=Taking power away from the perpetrator|language=en|work=[[Otago Daily Times]] |access-date=2024-10-08|url=https://odt.shorthandstories.com/taking-power-away-from-the-perpetrator/index.html|first=Rob|last=Kidd}}</ref> In theory, a defendant being well-known is not in-and-of-itself grounds for name suppression, though in practice many well-known people are granted name suppression when charged with a crime.<ref name=rnz-2025-superinjunction>{{citation|title=Prominent figure with name supression set to reappear in court|language=en|work=RNZ|first1=Sam|last1=Sherwood|date=2025-08-03|access-date=2025-08-03|url=https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/568870/prominent-figure-with-name-supression-set-to-reappear-in-court}}</ref>

Breaching a name suppression order brings a penalty of up to 6 months in prison for individuals, or fines of up to {{currency|100000|NZD}} for organisations.<ref name=nz-tvnz/>

Some high-profile cases have seen breaches of name suppression orders in New Zealand. In 2010, right-wing blogger and vocal critic of name suppression rules [[Cameron Slater]] was convicted of breaching name suppression orders and fined {{currency|8000|NZD|linked=no}}.<ref>{{citation|title=Blogger fights fine for breaching supression|language=en|work=[[Stuff (website)|Stuff]] |date=2011-07-07|access-date=2024-10-08|url=https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/5256230/Blogger-fights-fine-for-breaching-supression}}</ref> Later, Slater himself benefited from name suppression when charged with attempting to hack a competing political website.<ref>{{citation|title=Cameron Slater, fearless crusader against name suppression, just had his name suppression lifted|work=[[The Spinoff]] |first1=By|last1=Williams|date=2016-05-10|access-date=2024-10-08|url=http://thespinoff.co.nz/10-05-2016/cameron-slater-fearless-crusader-against-name-suppression-just-had-his-name-suppression-lifted/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160510090808/http://thespinoff.co.nz/10-05-2016/cameron-slater-fearless-crusader-against-name-suppression-just-had-his-name-suppression-lifted/|archive-date=2016-05-10}}</ref>

The defendant in the [[murder of Grace Millane]] was granted name suppression during trial, but media outlets covering the case in the United Kingdom published his name, as they were not subject to New Zealand law. This resulted in his name being commonly available online in New Zealand, including being emailed to Google News subscribers within New Zealand.<ref>{{citation|title=Bar Association says ongoing suppression breaches in Grace Millane murder case endanger trial|language=en|work=[[The New Zealand Herald]] |first1=Sam|last1=Hurley|date=2018-12-13|access-date=2024-10-08|url=https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/bar-association-says-ongoing-suppression-breaches-in-grace-millane-murder-case-endanger-trial/JWHW76MDVYQ62BFWCTQYMJAARE/?c_id=1&objectid=12176375}}</ref> Auckland businessman [[Leo Molloy]] was convicted of breaching name suppression in the case when he posted the defendant's name on a web forum. He was fined {{currency|15000|NZD|linked=no}} and sentenced to 350 hours of community service.<ref>{{citation|title=Grace Millane suppression breach: Leo Molloy fined $15,000 for naming killer on forum|language=en|work=[[Stuff (website)|Stuff]] |first1=Catrin|last1=Owen|date=2021-04-28|access-date=2024-10-08|url=https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/124972405/grace-millane-suppression-breach-leo-molloy-fined-15000-for-naming-killer-on-forum}}</ref>

In August 2023 [[Te Pāti Māori]] co-leader [[Rawiri Waititi]] made a direct reference to a child abuse case involving former [[ACT New Zealand|ACT party]] president [[Tim Jago]] in parliament.<ref>{{citation|title='Can't believe frankly what I've just heard': Te Pāti Māori's Waititi shocks with comment under parliamentary privilege|language=en|work=[[Newshub]]|date=2023-08-23|access-date=2024-09-16|url=https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/08/te-p-ti-m-ori-s-rawiri-waititi-shocks-with-comment-under-parliamentary-privilege.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240411051240/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/08/te-p-ti-m-ori-s-rawiri-waititi-shocks-with-comment-under-parliamentary-privilege.html|archive-date=11 April 2024|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{citation|title=Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers - August 23 2023|language=en|work=NZ Parliament Hansard Debates|access-date=2024-09-16|url=https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20230822_20230823_14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240411225953/https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20230822_20230823_14|archive-date=11 April 2024|url-status=live}}</ref> Despite details of the case being suppressed from publication by the courts, Waititi's speech was protected by [[parliamentary privilege]]. He was later suspended from parliament for breaching standing orders.<ref>{{citation|title=Te Pāti Māori 'more aware and respectful' of Parliament's relationship with courts|language=en|work=[[RNZ]] |first1=Craig|last1=Mcculloch|date=2024-08-29|access-date=2024-09-16|url=https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/526539/te-pati-maori-more-aware-and-respectful-of-parliament-s-relationship-with-courts}}</ref>

Name suppression orders can be quite broad. In 2025, former deputy New Zealand Police commissioner [[Jevon McSkimming]] was charged with possession of [[Child pornography|child sexual exploitation]] and [[Zoophilia#Pornography|bestiality]] material.<ref name=rnz-mcskimmingcharges>{{citation|title=Former top cop Jevon McSkimming faces charges of possessing child sexual exploitation, bestiality material|language=en|work=RNZ|first1=Sam|last1=Sherwood|date=2025-08-03|access-date=2025-08-03|url=https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/568907/former-top-cop-jevon-mcskimming-faces-charges-of-possessing-child-sexual-exploitation-bestiality-material}}</ref> Prior to being charged, McSkimming was granted a "super-injunction", that prevented the media reporting the nature of the material that had been discovered on his work devices, and also prevented reporting about the existence of the injunction itself.<ref>{{citation|title=Jevon McSkimming resignation: ‘Super injunction’ lifted but media still barred from publishing details of ‘objectionable material’ allegations against former deputy commissioner|language=en|work=The New Zealand Herald|first1=Jared|last1=Savage|date=2025-05-19|access-date=2025-08-03|url=https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/jevon-mcskimming-resignation-super-injunction-lifted-but-media-still-barred-from-publishing-details-of-objectionable-material-allegations-against-former-deputy-commissioner/TIKSDGEOZNAFRNMZWVJNLDVTHI/|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250720225330/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/jevon-mcskimming-resignation-super-injunction-lifted-but-media-still-barred-from-publishing-details-of-objectionable-material-allegations-against-former-deputy-commissioner/TIKSDGEOZNAFRNMZWVJNLDVTHI/|archive-date=2025-07-20}}</ref> Before he was arrested, he was again granted a suppression order that prevented media reporting that he had been arrested, or the nature of the crimes he was accused of.<ref name=rnz-2025-superinjunction/> Suppression lapsed before trial, and his identity was revealed.<ref name=rnz-mcskimmingcharges/>

Name suppression laws in New Zealand have been controversial since they were first introduced in the early 20th century,<ref name=tyler2020/> and specific suppression orders are also sometimes highly controversial.<ref>{{citation|title=Name Suppression: Balancing Open Justice and Privacy|language=en|work=Equal Justice Project|date=2024-09-18|access-date=2024-10-08|url=https://www.equaljusticeproject.co.nz/articles/name-suppression-balancing-open-justice-and-privacy2024}}</ref> Critics point to the legislation being used to protect the identities of well-known figures when they are accused of crime,<ref>{{citation|title=What you need to know about name suppression|language=en|work=[[RNZ]]|date=2015-09-15|access-date=2024-10-08|url=https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/373385/what-you-need-to-know-about-name-suppression|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221030061759/https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/373385/what-you-need-to-know-about-name-suppression|archive-date=30 October 2022|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=barret2012>{{citation|title=Name Suppression Orders and Web 2.0 Media: the New Zealand Experience|date=2012-01-12|language=en|work=European Journal of Law and Technology|publisher=ejlt.org|issn=2042-115X|volume=3|issue=1|first1=Jonathan|last1=Barrett|access-date=2024-10-08|url=https://ejlt.org/index.php/ejlt/article/view/117}}</ref> and that suppressing details from publication conflicts with the principle of [[open justice]].<ref name=tyler2020/> The internet has introduced new challenges with the enforcement of name suppression orders.<ref name=barret2012/> The [[New Zealand Bar Association]] has defended name suppression laws as an important tool for balancing the principles of open justice against fair trial rights.<ref>{{citation|title=Bar Association says current name suppression laws allow for balancing important rights|language=en|work=New Zealand Bar Association|access-date=2024-10-08|url=https://www.nzbar.org.nz/news/bar-association-says-current-name-suppression-laws-allow-balancing-important-rights}}</ref>

In 2025, a law change was proposed that would allow the victims of sex crimes to have final say over whether a convicted perpetrator would receive permanent name suppression.<ref>{{citation|title=Proposed name suppression law change would give victims final say on offenders remaining secret|language=en|work=The New Zealand Herald|first1=Jeremy|last1=Wilkinson|date=2024-11-21|access-date=2025-08-03|url=https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/proposed-name-suppression-law-change-would-give-victims-final-say-on-offenders-remaining-secret/2PE6K4DEGNF4XFJWJRYIQBV42Q/}}</ref>

=== Nigeria ===
In July 2021, the [[National Broadcasting Commission]] issued a gag order barring all journalists and broadcast stations in the country from reporting details of terrorists, kidnappers, and victims.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Release |first=Press |date=2021-07-18 |title=Insecurity: SERAP asks Buhari govt to withdraw gag order on reportage |url=https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/474337-insecurity-serap-asks-buhari-govt-to-withdraw-gag-order-on-reportage.html |access-date=2023-01-18 |website=Premium Times Nigeria |language=en-GB}}</ref> After unsuccessfully calling for the gag order's withdrawal, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) and the Centre for Journalism Innovation and Development (PTCIJ) filed a lawsuit against President [[Muhammadu Buhari]] and Minister of Information and Culture [[Lai Mohammed]], with National Broadcasting Commission also named as a defendant. The plaintiffs asked the court to “declare illegal the gag order" and to compel the defendants to withdraw the directive, arguing that it was "inconsistent and incompatible with sections 22 and 39 of the [[Constitution of Nigeria|Nigerian Constitution]], Article 9 of the [[African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights|African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights]] and Article 19 of the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]]".<ref>{{Cite web |date=2021-07-25 |title=Terrorism: SERAP, PTCIJ sue Buhari, Mohammed over media 'gag order' |url=https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/more-news/475556-terrorism-serap-ptcij-sue-buhari-mohammed-over-media-gag-order.html |access-date=2023-01-18 |website=Premium Times Nigeria |language=en-GB}}</ref>

=== United Kingdom ===
{{see also|2011 British privacy injunctions controversy}}
A gag order, or anonymity order, is sometimes issued by courts in the United Kingdom to protect privacy, prevent harm to suspects, prisoners,<ref name=Guardian52213>{{cite news|title=Triple child killer David McGreavy can be named, high court judges rule: Judges revoke 'mistaken' gagging order about coverage of long-serving UK prisoner's parole application|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/22/triple-child-killer-david-mcgreavy-named|access-date=22 May 2013|newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |date=22 May 2013|author=Alan Travis|quote=An anonymity order preventing the naming of one of Britain's most notorious child killers as David McGreavy has been lifted by the high court.}}</ref> witnesses, victims, or to protect national security.<ref>{{cite report|url=http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Guidance/crown_court_reporting_restrictions_021009.pdf |title=Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts |publisher=Judicial Studies Board |date=October 2009 |access-date=22 June 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130606194238/http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Guidance/crown_court_reporting_restrictions_021009.pdf |archive-date=6 June 2013}}</ref> In the [[Allan Chappelow]] murder case, the trial was held mostly ''[[in camera]]'' and media were prevented from speculating on the case. The order was imposed after a "compelling case" made by prosecutors, despite overwhelming media opposition brought by a legal challenge to the ruling.<ref>{{cite news |title=Secrecy ruling over murder trial |first=Dominic |last=Casciani |url=https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7190269.stm |newspaper=[[BBC News]] |date=15 January 2008 |access-date=10 September 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Secrets and lies |first=Richard |last=Norton-Taylor |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jan/11/politics.ukcrime |newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |date=11 January 2008 |access-date=10 September 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=News in Brief |url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3182382.ece |newspaper=[[The Times]] |date=14 January 2008 |access-date=10 September 2011}}{{dead link|date=September 2024|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> This criminal case has been thought to be the first in which a gagging order was imposed.<ref>{{cite news |title=Why is Home Office trying to stage murder trial in secret? |first=Frances |last=Gibb |url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3042941.ece |newspaper=[[The Times]] |date=13 December 2007 |access-date=10 September 2011}}{{dead link|date=September 2024|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref>

In 2011 [[super-injunctions in English law]], gagging orders that applied to themselves, were being referred to almost daily in the United Kingdom after a number of high-profile public figures, including celebrities and politicians, [[censorship|censored]] the British media from revealing information about their personal lives, such as affairs<ref>{{cite news |title=Ryan Giggs: from golden boy to tarnished idol |first=Steven |last=Swinford |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/8532042/Ryan-Giggs-from-golden-boy-to-tarnished-idol.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/8532042/Ryan-Giggs-from-golden-boy-to-tarnished-idol.html |archive-date=12 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |work=The Daily Telegraph  |date=23 May 2011 |access-date=28 May 2011}}{{cbignore}}</ref> and dealings with prostitutes.

Gag orders protecting the privacy of convicted child murderers such as [[Mary Bell]], [[Jon Venables]] and [[David McGreavy]], in order to protect them from revenge attacks, have also been controversial because of public concerns about the inability to avoid such persons and protect victims' families and other children from being harmed by them.<ref name=Guardian52213 /><ref>{{cite news |title=James Bulger Killer Jon Venables Joins Dating Website Under Different Name|first=Simon |last=Wright|url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/james-bulger-killer-jon-venables-5038127 |newspaper=[[Daily Mirror]] |date=24 January 2015 |access-date=8 May 2015}}</ref>

=== The Netherlands ===
In The Netherlands, ethologist Gerrit van Putten was given two separate gag orders by the Minister of Agriculture to protect [[intensive]] [[farming]]. The first gag order was issued after Van Putten had published a report on tail biting in [[pig]]s in 1972, and had advocated that the pig's tail is a thermometer of animal welfare, which was discarded when the "temperature" became too high, i.e. the tails were docked rather than that housing conditions were improved. The second gag order was issued in 1989 by Minister Braks, who did not want to hear about the adverse effects of confined housing of pigs.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.npogeschiedenis.nl/andere-tijden/afleveringen/2000-2001/Lekker-Dier.html | title=Andere Tijden: Lekker Dier | date=11 July 2013 | access-date=15 November 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://resource.wageningenur.nl/nl/show/Dierenwelzijn-1.htm | title=Dierenwelzijn, Resource | date=30 November 2006 | access-date=15 November 2014 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160423044607/http://resource.wageningenur.nl/nl/show/Dierenwelzijn-1.htm | archive-date=23 April 2016 | url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.digibron.nl/search/detail/0137b7a1adeb7b3de1ba9268/braks-wil-spreekverbod-ambtenaar-niet-opheffen | title=Braks wil spreekverbod ambtenaar niet opheffen | date=14 February 1989 | access-date=15 November 2014}}</ref>

In 2015, a Dutch court issued a gag order on writer Edwin Giltay, banning his non-fiction thriller ''[[The Cover-up General]]''
and prohibiting him to promote it. The suppression order denied Edwin Giltay to disclose the contents of the book, which 
delineates an espionage scandal within [[Dutch Military Intelligence and Security Service|Dutch military intelligence]] that he 
witnessed first-hand, about obscuring evidence of [[Srebrenica_massacre#Crimes_committed_in_Poto%C4%8Dari|war crimes in 
Srebrenica]].<ref>[[Judiciary of the Netherlands#District Courts|District court]] The Hague 11 December 2015, C/09/497903 KG ZA 15/1556, {{ECLI|ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:15050}} (in Dutch)</ref><ref>
{{cite web 
 | first=Alosman 
 | last=Husejnović 
 | title=Casper ten Dam: Nakon zabrane knjige o Srebrenici pravdu ćemo tražiti do Evropskog suda!
 | url=https://avaz.ba/vijesti/bih/212758/casper-ten-dam-nakon-zabrane-knjige-o-srebrenici-pravdu-cemo-traziti-do-evropskog-suda
 | work=[[Dnevni Avaz]] 
 | date=4 January 2016 
 | access-date=4 January 2020 
 | language=bs
 | trans-title=Casper ten Dam: The Srebrenica book prohibition will lead us to seek justice all the way to the European Court!
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web 
 | title=Netherlands: Court bans book on Srebrenica genocide 
 | url=https://mappingmediafreedom.ushahidi.io/posts/19290
 | work=Mapping Media Freedom, [[Index on Censorship]] 
 | date=24 December 2015 
 | access-date=4 January 2020 
 | language=en 
}}</ref>
In 2016, the Court of Appeal in The Hague revoked the gag order and the book ban.<ref>[[Judiciary of the Netherlands#Courts of Appeal|Court of Appeal]] The Hague 12 April 2016, 200.183.987/01, {{ECLI|ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2016:870}} (in Dutch)</ref>

===United States===
{{primary sources|section|reason=Individual statues, as well as arguments made in subpoenas and court rulings are being included in the article. Secondary sources must be cited that interpret the relevance and applicability of such arguments|date=December 2018}}
{{see also|Gag rule (United States)}}
A [[national security letter]] ({{USC|18|2709}}), an administrative subpoena used by the [[FBI]], has an attached gag order which restricts the recipient from ever saying anything about being served with one.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-roadmap-justice-department-inspector-general-s-review-fbi-s-use-national-secu |title=ACLU Roadmap of Justice Department Inspector General's Review of the FBI's Use of National Security Letters |date=19 March 2007 |publisher=[[American Civil Liberties Union]] |access-date=10 September 2011}}</ref> The government has issued hundreds of thousands of such NSLs accompanied with gag orders. The gag orders have been upheld in court.<ref>{{cite news |title=Judge Refuses to Lift 5-Year-Old Patriot Act Gag Order |first=David |last=Kravets |url=https://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/10/patriot-act-gag/ |newspaper=[[Wired News]] |date=20 October 2009 |access-date=10 September 2011}}</ref>

[[Suspicious activity report]]s ({{USC|31|5318(g)(2)}}; the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 / Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act, {{USPL|102|550}}, § 1517(b), {{USStat|106|4060}}) require that "If a financial institution or any director, officer, employee, or agent of any financial institution [...] reports a suspicious transaction to a government agency—neither the financial institution, director, officer, employee, or agent of such institution (whether or not any such person is still employed by the institution) [...] may notify any person involved in the transaction that the transaction has been reported; and no current or former officer or employee of or contractor for the Federal Government or of or for any State, local, tribal, or territorial government within the United States, who has any knowledge that such report was made may disclose to any person involved in the transaction that the transaction has been reported".{{primary source inline|date=December 2018}}

{{USC|18|2705(b)}} (the [[Electronic Communications Privacy Act]] of 1986 / [[Stored Communications Act]]) also provides for gag orders which direct the recipient of a {{USC|18|2703(d)}} order to refrain from disclosing the existence of the order or the investigation.<ref>[http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Published/115151.p.pdf In Re: Application of the United States of America for an Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2703(d)] of 25 January 2013, p. 4, from the [[Wikileaks-related Twitter subpoenas]]</ref>{{primary source inline|date=December 2018}}

{{USC|18|3123(d)(2)}} (the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) also provides for gag orders which direct the recipient of a [[pen register]] or [[trap and trace device]] order not to disclose the existence of the pen/trap or the investigation.<ref>[http://www.steptoe.com/assets/attachments/3449.pdf In Re: Sealing and Non-disclosure of Pen/Trap/2703(d) Orders of 30 May 2008, p. 5]</ref>

In the United States, a court can order parties to a case not to comment on it but has no authority to stop unrelated reporters from reporting on a case. Thus, information concerning a case is often leaked to the media, and the media often chooses to publicly report this leaked information after receiving it. Most statutes which restrict what may be reported have generally been found [[unconstitutional]] and void. However, the gag provisions of the [[WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act]] have been upheld.

The trials of [[Guantanamo Bay detention camp|Guantanamo Bay]] suspects have also been subjected to a gag order, which has hindered public scrutiny.<ref>{{cite news |title=Judge's Order Could Keep Public From Hearing Details of 9/11 Trials |first=Peter |last=Finn |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010603374.html? |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=7 January 2009 |access-date=10 September 2011}}</ref> Likewise, as part of a plea bargain, [[John Walker Lindh]] consented to a gag order to not talk to the press or others. Also, Judge Howard Shore from San Diego put a gag order on activist Jeff Olson.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/18058-san-diego-judge-puts-unprecedented-gag-order-on-sidewalk-chalk-protestor-trial |title=San Diego Judge Puts Unprecedented Gag Order on Sidewalk Chalk Protestor Trial |date=28 June 2013 |publisher=[[Truthout]] |access-date=1 July 2013}}</ref>

Gag orders can be part of a settlement agreement between two parties. In the state of Pennsylvania in 2011, a lifetime gag order on the discussion of [[fracking]] was agreed to by a family as part of [[Stephanie Hallowich, H/W, v. Range Resources Corporation|their agreement]] with the oil and gas drilling company [[Range Resources]]. An attorney for Range Resources claimed in court that the gag order covered not only the adults in the family, but also the children, then aged seven and ten years old, and that the company intended to enforce it.<ref name="goldenberg-2013">{{cite news|last=Goldenberg|first=Suzanne|title=Children given lifelong ban on talking about fracking|url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/05/children-ban-talking-about-fracking|access-date=6 August 2013|newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |date=5 August 2013}}</ref>{{refn|After court records were unsealed and the settlement was reported in the press, the chief counsel for Range Resources denied that the gag order applied to the children. In a letter to the family's attorney, he wrote, "Range has never, at any time, had the intention of seeking to hold a minor child legally accountable for a breach of that provision of the settlement agreement."<ref name="hopey-2013b">{{cite news|first=Don|last=Hopey|title=Hallowich children not part of Marcellus Shale gag order agreement|url=http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/washington/hallowich-children-not-part-of-gag-order-698343/|access-date=14 August 2013|newspaper=Pittsburgh Post-Gazette|date=7 August 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130810200237/http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/washington/hallowich-children-not-part-of-gag-order-698343/|archive-date=10 August 2013}}</ref>|group=nb}}

Some U.S. states, the first of which was [[Florida]], have enacted so-called "[[physician gag law]]s" limiting doctors' ability to ask about a patient's gun ownership.<ref name="Rathore">{{cite journal | url=http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2014/04/pfor2-1404.html | title=Physician "Gag Laws" and Gun Safety | journal=Virtual Mentor | date=April 2014 | access-date=15 November 2015 | author=Rathore, Mobeen | volume=16 | issue=4 | pages=284–8 | doi=10.1001/virtualmentor.2014.16.04.pfor2-1404 | pmid=24735578 | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151117063142/http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2014/04/pfor2-1404.html | archive-date=17 November 2015| url-access=subscription }}</ref>

====California====
In 2017, California enacted the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act, adjusting [[California Penal Code]] 1546, including Section 1546.2 (b) (1), a provision which allows that in certain cases, a court can issue "an order delaying notification and prohibiting any party providing information from notifying any other party" that an electronic [[search warrant]] has been requested by a government entity.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://law.onecle.com/california/penal/1546.2.html |title = CA Penal Code § 1546.2 (2017) | date = 2017 |access-date=2020-05-26 |website=Onecle Inc. |publisher=State of California }}</ref>

====Puerto Rico====
{{Main|Gag Law (Puerto Rico)}}
On 21 May 1948, a bill was introduced before the [[Puerto Rican Senate]] which would restrain the rights of the [[Independence movement in Puerto Rico|independence]] and [[Puerto Rican Nationalist Party|Nationalist]] movements on the [[archipelago]], which was a colony of the United States at the time. The Senate, controlled by the ''Partido Popular Democrático'' ([[Popular Democratic Party (Puerto Rico)|PPD]]), approved the bill that day.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://academiajurisprudenciapr.org/en/revistas/volumen-vii/ |title=La obra jurídica del Profesor David M. Helfeld (1948–2008) |first=Dr. Carmelo Delgado |last=Cintrón |language=es |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120327121629/http://academiajurisprudenciapr.org/en/revistas/volumen-vii/ |archive-date=27 March 2012 |url-status=dead }}</ref> This bill, which resembled the anti-communist [[Smith Act]] passed in the United States in 1940, became known as the ''Ley de la Mordaza'' ([[Gag Law (Puerto Rico)|Gag Law]], technically "Law 53 of 1948") when the U.S.-appointed governor of Puerto Rico, [[Jesús T. Piñero]], signed it into law on 10 June 1948.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.topuertorico.org/history5.shtml |title=Puerto Rican History |publisher=Topuertorico.org |date=13 January 1941 |access-date=20 November 2011}}</ref>

Under this new law it became a crime to print, publish, sell, or exhibit any material intended to paralyze or destroy the insular government; or to organize any society, group or assembly of people with a similar destructive intent. It made it illegal to sing a patriotic song, and reinforced the 1898 law that had made it illegal to display the [[Flag of Puerto Rico]], with anyone found guilty of disobeying the law in any way being subject to a sentence of up to ten years imprisonment, a fine of up to US$10,000 ({{Inflation|US|10000|1948|r=-3|fmt=eq}}), or both. According to [[Leopoldo Figueroa]], the lone non-PPD member of the [[Puerto Rico House of Representatives]], Law 53 was repressive and was in violation of the First Amendment of the [[US Constitution]] which guarantees [[Freedom of Speech]]. He pointed out that the law as such was a violation of the civil rights of the people of Puerto Rico.<ref name="LG">[https://issuu.com/jaimepartsch/docs/jes_s_t._pi_ero_y_la_guerra_fria?mode=a_p La Gobernación de Jesús T. Piñero y la Guerra Fría]</ref>

=== Venezuela ===
The [[Inter-American Commission on Human Rights]] and the [[Inter American Press Association|Inter-American Press Association]] (IAPA), as well as the [[Venezuelan opposition]], have considered the [[Law on Social Responsibility on Radio and Television]] as a gag law that violates freedom of the press and the exercise of journalism in Venezuela.<ref name="ElPaís">{{cite news |last1=Hernández |first1=Clodovaldo |date=26 November 2004 |title=Venezuela aprueba la polémica ley de control de radio y televisión |url=http://elpais.com/diario/2004/11/26/internacional/1101423620_850215.html |access-date=26 August 2015 |work=El País}}</ref><ref name="ENH">{{cite news |date=26 November 2004 |title=Aprueban en Venezuela la polémica "Ley Mordaza" |url=http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/venezuela/ley-mordaza.htm |access-date=26 August 2015 |work=El Nuevo Herald}}</ref>

== See also ==
{{div col|colwidth=22em}}
* [[Ag-gag]]
* [[Compromise agreement]]
* [[DA-Notice]]
* [[Editorial independence]]
* [[Filibuster]]
* [[Franchise fraud]]
* [[Freedom of speech]]
* [[Gag rule]]
* [[Injunction]]
* [[Media blackout]]
* [[Media transparency]]
* [[Never say anything]]
* [[Non-disclosure agreement]]
* [[Prior restraint]]
* [[Publication ban]]
* [[Public Interest Immunity]]
* [[River crab (Internet slang)|Rivercrabbing]]
* [[Super-injunction]]
* [[Temporary restraining order]]
* [[Whistleblower]]
{{div col end}}

==Notes==
{{Reflist|group=nb}}

==References==
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}

{{Censorship}}

{{Portal bar|Freedom of speech}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gag Order}}
[[Category:Censorship]]
[[Category:Court orders]]
[[Category:Judicial legal terminology]]