Hacker in AT&T iPad case breaks gagging order

Someone please explain to me how gag orders surrounding trials came to be considered legally and morally acceptable. I don't understand the justification at all. Doesn't free speech necessarily entail the right to speak to the "court of public opinion"?

I can understand this sort of secrecy when classified information is involved, in that people who go into access willingly give up certain free speech rights-- they lose any right to disseminate the information-- but, in a case like this, it seems that weev (who would probably never pass a security clearance and get access to classified information) should have the right to say whatever he wants about what's happening to him.

He's kind of a douche. Between this [1] and his infatuation with the God-hates-gays Fred Phelps, his ties to antisemitism, etc, he strikes me as not a real nice guy.

[1] "Auernheimer claimed responsibility for the disruption to Amazon's services in April 2009 when many books on gay issues were reclassified as pornography."