THE AUTHOR CITES STATE, FEDERAL, AND SUPREME COURT DECISION TO SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENT THAT THE 'GAG ORDER' CASE LAW IS SO CONFUSED THAT NEITHER THE BENCH, THE BAR, NOR THE MEDIA KNOWS WHAT THE LAW IS. HE MAINTAINS THAT PRIOR RESTRAINTS ON PRESS ACCESS TO AND COMMENT ABOUT CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCEEDINGS ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE FIRST AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS AND ARGUES THAT THE COURTS SHOULD RECOGNIZE THE PRESS' DUE PROCESS RIGHTS TO NOTICE AND A HEARING BEFORE THE ENTRY OF A RESTRICTIVE ORDER. A REFORM PROPOSAL BY THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S LEGAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON FAIR TRIAL AND FREE PRESS IS REVIEWED AND SEVERAL OF ITS DEFECTS, FROM THE PRESS'S POINT OF VIEW, ARE POINTED OUT. THE MAJOR DEFECT IDENTIFIED IS THE PROSPOSAL'S FAILURE TO ADVOCATE AN AUTOMATIC STAY ON APPEAL FOR ALL RESTRICTIVE ORDERS, A PROVISION WHICH WOULD PLACE THE BURDEN OF JUSTIFYING FIRST AMENDMENT RESTRICTIONS ON THE JUDGE ISSUING THE ORDER.