Something that should trouble anyone interested in the free flow of information was reported by the Portland Press Herald Tuesday in its coverage of a court appearance by “well-known criminal defense attorney” Anthony Sineni.

It seems Sineni, who had been charged with numerous felonies originating from a domestic violence case, got the judge in the matter — Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz, deputy chief of the state’s district court — to order the media not to report on what was said in court by Sineni or any witnesses. The request seems laughable, but apparently Judge Moskowitz took it seriously and gave the edict.

Thankfully, the PPH reporter covered the hearing and the paper’s staff consulted with its attorney and did not comply with the court order. During the court appearance, Sineni “didn’t admit any wrongdoing, but acknowledged there was enough evidence to find him guilty to charges of assault and disorderly conduct.” Charges against Sineni that were dropped as a result of the plea bargain were one misdemeanor count of domestic violence, one felony count of possession of a stolen gun or guns, and three felony counts of witness tampering. According to the Press Herald article, “the disorderly conduct charge would be dismissed after one year and the assault charge would be dismissed after two years if Sineni stayed out of trouble.”

While we could try to understand restriction of media coverage of victims in a domestic violence case — but still fight for the right to make a choice — that a court would try to gag coverage of someone who is being convicted of assault is truly perplexing. There is no restriction of the media’s reporting on victims, even in incidents of sexual assault — most outlets do not report names of victims in those cases, but there is nothing preventing media entities from making that information public.

From the coverage of the court appearance, the gag order was issued to protect Sineni, not his ex-girlfriend. According to the article, “Winona Hichborn, Sineni’s 34-yearold ex-girlfriend with whom he has three children, was the only witness who spoke during the court hearing. It was her testimony, in which she described her 11-year relationship with Sineni and claims of domestic abuse, that the judge had ordered the media not to report.”

If you’re trying to protect the victim in this case, you wouldn’t rule out reporting of the claims of abuse, you’d be trying to prevent identification of the victim. Instead, the focus was on stopping the reporting of the claims. Whose interests did the judge have in mind with his order? We’ll let our readers make that determination.

The PPH’s attorney, Sigmund Schutz, was quoted in the article as saying it was easy to see this as violating the right to free speech.

“There is a 100 percent chance that the order is unlawful,” Schutz said in the article. “I think there is no question that the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts have been very clear, what occurs or is said in the court is a matter of public record.”

We certainly will join the Portland Press Herald in opposing such an action, and applaud those in charge of that paper for standing up for First Amendment rights.

Allowing things like this to pass without raising a fuss will only allow the further erosion of our rights. Fighting for the right to report what’s said in court isn’t about being able to pass along salacious details of a domestic incident to readers — it’s about keeping the right intact for the times when the public needs to be informed about issues that will affect them.

That principle — which allows us to inform our readers about matters that impact their lives, positively or negatively — is what newspapers are rooted in and we will actively oppose those who try to stop us from doing that.