That would be a First Amendment violation, because it would also prohibit legal speech. The only way he's not able to reach the public is if he's in jail.

If he goes to jail - a justifiable sentence for continually violating gag orders - his minions will call that a First Amendment "Deep State" thing. And they might not be far from the truth.

It's going to be really bad, the more he threatens people. It's going to even worse if he goes to jail.

Edit: I wanted to add, "The only way he stops sending his threats is if he dies," but that's not even true.

If he dies of natural causes, or an accident, or by murder - doesn't matter. His followers will blame their enemies, and they will act. There is no way this all ends with anything but violence. The only question is when, and how much.

The question is this: Sometimes its pretty solid to issue repeated gag orders (in front of the watching jury), and everyday have to drag the defendant up and once again talk about how they violated the gag order in spirit and have to get even further sanctioned... while the whole jury sits and watches it.

Everytime it happens the jury becomes further pitted against the asshole who is wasting their time.

Yeah, no, that is a direct violation of his 1st amendment rights. He knows he's playing catch me if you can with the court and his mouth because the court can only gag very narrowly defined speech. For instance the court could say he can't talk about pickles, so he talks about cucumbers soaked in a brine. The court tells him he cannot talk about cucumbers soaked in a brine. So he talks about a green vegetable roughly the size of a pickling cucumber that you then put into a mixture that contains seasonings, vinegar, etc. Will he eventually run out of ways to describe a pickle? Sure, but he'll have wasted shitloads of the judge's time and distracted from what was actually happening in court. And it's working. Do you know anything about what has been presented so far in the case? You probably don't because those articles don't bring the clicks and views like stories about his latest shenanigans on social media.

Of all the types of speech protected by the courts, none is more highly valued than political speech. So there's no way in hell a court would try to impose blanket silence on a political candidate.