Gag orders are rarely used for this purpose.

The information that so-and-so parties provided some information (without disclosure of that information) in response to a lawful request will usually not predudice a trial.

What gag orders are for is a) avoiding tipping off the subject of an active investigation b) avoiding general knowledge or disclosure of key sources of information and investigative methods used by law enforcement and c) concealing the general scale, nature and purpose of surveillance activities from the general public.

> Gag orders are rarely used for this purpose.

I agree, but the only time I think it's justified is when it's to protect the right to a fair trial.

So the whole of society must be kept in the dark? No, jurors should simply judge on the evidence presented in court, and those looking for unwarranted (sadly, not literally) secrecy should look for other ways to continue their insidious conspiracies against people.

>jurors should simply judge on the evidence presented in court

I don't know if humans are able to ignore evidence they have heard outside of court. We are not good at only including one set of information when making judgements.

Right, but you're advocating keeping the whole of society in the dark versus relying on twelve people to be fair, which is what they're told to do. I would say that the latter is better than the former because of the immense harm keeping the whole of society in the dark. It's a numbers game.

All of society benefits from the right to a fair trial. But, most of the time gag orders are abused and no one benefits.

The way I propose does not preclude a fair trial. The way you propose (i.e. the status quo) precludes an informed electorate and introduces perverse incentives for those in power.

I disagree but that's okay :)

Rather than disagree you might point out why with reference to the points I’ve made. Comity is only an end in itself in, ironically, cultures that do not value free speech and hence, put truth beneath social harmony. The idea that I could be put on a jury and be unwilling or unable to ignore what a journalist, of all people, had relayed about a case, is risible, and I can bet I’m not alone.

I think that the way you propose does preclude a fair trial as it biases the jury but we've already covered that and come to different conclusions.

I agree that free speech has significant value and restrictions should only be put in place when required to uphold other rights.

I'm sure you're not alone in your opinion that a jury is able to ignore what they've heard about a case in the media. However you do disagree with the current judicial system of most developed nations. That doesn't necessarily make you wrong. I think there is merit to the argument you're making, I just am not convinced that people can ignore information like that.

https://juryanalyst.com/blog/the-power-of-media-coverage-how...

https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2019CanLIIDocs2798#...