To the guy who was frustrated by the judge... well, folks, sadly, a judge can tell a paper not to print something. That happens a lot in cases like this. And it's very, very constitutional.

Actually it's not, that was my point. It's called prior restraint and the only times, and I mean the only times that it's actually allowed to be used is for matter of "National Security" or when somebody's right to a fair trial would be impinged on and even then it's a matter of the very last resort and most often struck down even in those cases.

This judge and the gaurdian ad litem didn't bother to talk with the father to ask that he not talk about things, they went behind his back, did not bother to tell his lawyer what was going on, and issued a restraining order that not only kept him from talking but cut the stories of six other people.

Think about it, how would you feel about your rights were being treated if your responses never saw the light of day because a judge, without giving you a chance to contest or even know until after the fact, told Rosity...."here's a restraining order, don't publish anything this person says until I have a chance to look at it and say it's o.k.." Now do you think it's Constitutional?