Under the guise of protecting a 17½-year-old child,
a New Jersey family court judge placed a blanket
prohibition upon petitioner Jeanne Tamagny's ability
to speak to anyone about her pending divorce action.
In so doing, the trial court violated Ms. Tamagny's free
speech and parental rights, in conflict with decisions of
this Court and multiple federal courts of appeals. The
question presented is:

Whether a court's prior restraint on
speech must be content-neutral, narrowly
tailored to serve a significant governmental
interest, and leave open ample alternatives for
communication to satisfy the First Amendment.

Whether a court's prior restraint on speech must be content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and leave open ample alternatives for communication to satisfy the First Amendment