For an implied prior restraint on speech? Not so much I think.

The UK arrests reporters for reporting. This isn't just about libel (also much more problematic in the UK) or revealing sources. It's about plain old honest reporting of factual events that occur out in public. A reporter reports on people heading into a courthouse, and he gets sent to prison for 13 months. The court then orders that nobody can report on the reporter's arrest either. If not for non-UK web sites ignoring the order, it would be a secret arrest.

But this was ordinary contempt of court for not reporting about an ongoing trial until it was complete. It's a long standing govt right in the UK. Was there anything unusual about this case?

  It's a long standing govt right in the UK.

Well, there's a differentiator right there. In the USA, government doesn't have rights; it only has enumerated powers.

Yeah, I know this is different than the US, but I keep seeing people complaining about it from a US civil rights standard. We should at least appreciate that under UK law there are different rights. For the US, I feel like the enumerated power idea has become a somewhat historical concept instead of being true in practice. As an example, think about civil forfeiture. I don't see how that is enumerated.

If it isn't unusual, then that only supports the idea that freedom of press is lower in the UK.

I think freedom of the press is lower there in the uk. Plus they it's too easy to win a suit for libel there.