Good point and you guys are right, Chip and '62. But it seems to be discriminating when a person who is very high profile like Michael gets the gag order and the normal Joe in the same case may not. We all want our children to grow up, be successful and happy. Michael is very-very rich and you can say that he is/was very successful in the music industry. In return for being successful, he is told that he may face charges if he publicly declares his innocence. It kind makes the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" hold no water IMO.
The jury being tainted thing is kind of ironic in a way for this case. If there is actually someone out there who has not seen or heard about this case yet (or has not formed some sort of opinion due to the time that it has been in the news), then I would doubt that Michael claiming innocence in public would effect these "qualified to serve as a jury member for this case people" anyhow.
macro... I found it too easy (of course) to come up w/ those little things when writing about Michael!