Various suggestions have been offered for dealing with the problems likely to arise from news coverage of prolonged terrorist incidents, from prior restraints to news blackouts to voluntary press-police guidelines to a complete hands-off attitude. A hands-off policy suggests that any restrictions on publicity might have worse consequences than the normal publicity. This argument holds that whenever there are doubts, the first amendment resolves them in favor of free expression. Another position calls for voluntary cooperative restraints by the news media and adherence to suggest police-press guidelines. While such proposals seem vague and are unlikely to be enforced by editors wary of the dangers of self-censorship as well as government censorship, they are clearly constitutional. Further, to the extent the law enforcement authorities make those voluntary restraints work by themselves in limiting the information released to the news media, they find precedent in the fair trial-free press accommodation. If there are to be any significant restrictions on the press in the context of terrorist incidents, prior restraint may be the only approach available, but the prior restraint doctrine imposes extremely strict and virtually insurmountable substantive and procedural barriers under the applicable first amendment precedents. A situation must be equivalent to wartime before a prior restraint may even be contemplated. Government control over the information released to the media seems the only practical and constitutional approach for trying to avoid the publishing or broadcasting of information damaging to law enforcement goals in dealing with a terrorist incident. Sixty-nine footnotes are provided.