In which case, I'll fill in what you conveniently left out:-
* Tommy Robinson was arrested for contempt of court
* Tommy Robinson is still under a suspended sentence for a previous conviction of contempt of court
* The publication ban is because the judge is concerned that by continuing to report on the trial Tommy Robinson was apparently 'reporting' on (quotes mine), there's a risk of prejudicing it
* Tommy Robinson is not a reporter or a journalist - if he was, he'd be aware of the reasons why courts are not best pleased about someone filming the people coming and going
In short - man does thing, is convicted of doing a thing, is given a suspended sentence and told not to do the thing again, and is somehow surprised that the legal system takes a dim view of it. A more cynical person may say that Robinson has his own reasons for doing what he's doing that are particular to the people involved in the trial, but I'll leave that as an exercise for people to figure out with a Google search.
Your comment that "Robinson has his own reasons for doing what he's doing that are particular to the people involved" seems to miss the point of a freedom. Freedom doesn't count if it only applies to things you find unobjectionable. The implication is that his freedom of press is somehow less deserving because of the subject matter he chooses to cover.
Here in the USA, our supreme court decided that the Westboro Baptist Church could protest by going uninvited to military funerals and holding signs that say "GOD HATES FAGS". That, plus dragging American flags on the ground, ensures that they won't get support from either side of the political spectrum in the USA. They still have their right to free speech. A "right" isn't a "right" if it is conditional on being inoffensive.
In which case, I'll fill in what you conveniently left out:-
* Tommy Robinson was arrested for contempt of court
* Tommy Robinson is still under a suspended sentence for a previous conviction of contempt of court
* The publication ban is because the judge is concerned that by continuing to report on the trial Tommy Robinson was apparently 'reporting' on (quotes mine), there's a risk of prejudicing it
* Tommy Robinson is not a reporter or a journalist - if he was, he'd be aware of the reasons why courts are not best pleased about someone filming the people coming and going
In short - man does thing, is convicted of doing a thing, is given a suspended sentence and told not to do the thing again, and is somehow surprised that the legal system takes a dim view of it. A more cynical person may say that Robinson has his own reasons for doing what he's doing that are particular to the people involved in the trial, but I'll leave that as an exercise for people to figure out with a Google search.