bargain On May 16, Olson was offered a plea bargain to reduce his crimes to infractions, which would have given him a punishment of 32 hours of community service, a mandatory eight-hour seminar on behavior, a requirement to pay Bank of America $6,299 in restitution, a requirement to waive his Fourth Amendment rights regarding search and seizures, and a loss of his driver's licence for 3 years. Olson turned down the plea bargain. Prohibition on mentioning first amendment rights during trial On June 5, 2013, Judge Shore granted a motion by Deputy City Attorney Paige Hazard, which prohibited Olson's attorney Tom Tosdal from using any of the following terms during the trial: "First Amendment," "free speech," "political speech," "public forum," "free expression," or "expressive conduct." Media reports decried that Olson would not be allowed to claim his first amendment rights. However, Judge Shore stated that he was bound by precedent—specifically the published decision of the California Court of Appeal in Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc.(2005)129 Cal.App.4th 1228, a case involving California's anti-SLAPP statute (strategic lawsuit against public participation). In a complex, lengthy decision, the Court of Appeal found certain activities of the employee to be constitutionally protected, but held, as to the vandalism, "Vandalism, of course, is not a legitimate exercise of free speech rights, and if the complaint arose only from such conduct it would not be subject to an anti-SLAPP motion." 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 1245. Second plea bargain Olson was offered another plea bargain a week and a half later, on June 18, where pleading guilty to a single count of vandalism would reduce his sentence to three years probation, require him to pay restitution (undetermined amount), require he clean graffiti for 24 hours, and lose his driver's license for two years. Again, Olson turned down the plea bargain. Prohibition on contact with the media Olson's trial began on June 26, 2013. Soon after, several media reports decried the suggested sentences as excessive, including in The LA Times, the San Diego Reader, NPR, Gawker, New York Daily News and The Huffington Post. Shore objected to the reports that defense counsel and defendant were making statements to the media while the trial was ongoing, and issued a gag order that prohibited Olson or any witnesses involved with the case from having any contact with the media. He stated his concern that the