Two Times journalists who have been covering the case would be at risk. The judge in the case has threatened journalists with contempt of court charges, which can bring up to five years in prison.

Some publications that have published the news have no full-time staff in Australia and face no such risk. Even naming them appears to be illegal.

But the battle reaches beyond one particular case. It’s a contest of competing democratic values.

The core debate is an old one, pitting the right of the accused to a fair trial against the right of free speech, and of the public to know what’s going on in the courtroom. Those poles are not mutually exclusive: Trials in Australia, as in the United States, are usually both open and fair.

“What you need for a fair trial are fair and unbiased jurors, not people who have been kept in the dark,” said Kurt Wimmer, a media and technology lawyer who is a partner with Covington and Burling in Washington.

Because of the way technology has shifted the media landscape, gag orders now raise additional questions of scale and geography. The question now is whether a local judge, in protecting the right to a fair trial, should have the unilateral authority to silence journalists and publishers around the globe.

In the case at hand, a criminal matter involving someone whose previous position of power touched the lives of millions all over the world, the stakes are especially high. The defendant is well known, having played a public role with issues and institutions that inspire strong emotions, making bias harder to stamp out.

On the other side are not just journalists, but also those who were affected by the defendants’ actions over many years in many places. They demand accountability, and also claim a right to know, seeing secrecy as an accomplice to the crimes of the case.