Since, in most cases, sequestration is no longer an option for judges to insure an impartial jury, judicial restraints or suppression orders directed at trial participants have become increasingly attractive. The problem is that the press has a desire to disseminate information about the judicial process to the public. Silence orders prohibiting extrajudicial comment by trial participants raise important questions about the right of participants to communicate with the public, in particular via the press, and the right of the press to gather news. Clarification of participants' rights and the correct standard of review is needed to provide nationally consistent guidelines for implementing silence orders. Trial participants, the press, and the public must be made aware of their rights when a judge issues an order proscribing extrajudicial comment. "Compelling interest" is a standard of review which provides greater clarity and precision and is a balancing of the state's interest with that of the people; that is, it insures a defendant in a criminal case a fair trial and insures that individuals' free speech rights are not unnecessarily infringed upon. Although the proposed standard is difficult to meet, it will insure that First Amendment rights are not needlessly sacrificed. (One hundred and thirty-seven notes are included.) (MS)