BBM. I think Dina's right to speech does include expressing her opinion about the actions and motives of those who file a lawsuit against her that publicly accuses her of murder. Especially in a death that was publicly ruled as a suicide years ago.
iirc, RZ's family also filed a lawsuit against the Sheriff. When someone files multiple lawsuits against high profile people, it's going to attract media and public attention and opinion. I think that pretty much comes with the territory.
Perhaps one of the legal experts can weigh in about the freedom of speech issue and clarify for us.
JMO
Following are some helpful links about the history and nature of gag orders. They first came into being when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sam Sheppard in the trial for the muder of his wife Marilyn. The Supreme Court ruled that , due to the media circus surrounding it, he didn't receive a fair trial.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/fairtrialissues.htm
Since then, gag orders have been used by judges to protect defendants and plaintiffs, corporations and governments. While there seem to be disagreements over gag orders covering the press or news media, they've usually been upheld for defendants, proesecutors, witnesses, etc.
More information here:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order
A gag order prohibiting media interviews and leaks wouldn't interfere with the free speech rights of any of the trial participants, as they are free to speak in their own defense inside the courtroom.
MOO IANAL