There was no restriction on their speech at all, only on their presence in the courthouse. They're free to watch the streams and report as they wish. That res

There was no restriction on their speech at all, only on their presence in the courthouse. They're free to watch the streams and report as they wish. That restriction abides by the normal 3-prong test for time, place & manner restrictions: https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1023/time-place-and-manner-restrictions https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1023/time-place-and... * The regulation must be content neutral. There was no restriction at all on the content of their publications. * It must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest. They were kicked out for the duration of the trial (one whole day), which is narrow. This came after they were caught interfering with the constitutional rights of a criminal defendant, which is a significant governmental interest. * It must leave open ample alternative channels for communicating the speaker’s message. They can easily watch the streams everyone else is watching and report, so it has no meaningful impact on their coverage at all. There were no content restrictions put on them of any kind. They were given due process, and none of their speech was censored at all. The only restriction was on their physical presence near the jury, there was no speech-related restriction whatsoever. Perhaps you can explain how legally or culturally this impinges on free speech? It's very clearly lawful and appropriate given the circumstances and I cannot see how it in any way chills their speech.