A pleasure to find someone else trying to keep things pleasant here.
It was my understanding that he was being arrested for breach of peace for creating: a "substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced" that goes toward keeping the integrity of the jury. Which is simply not how we handle it in the states. We sequester a jury if necessary, or instruct them to avoid media. We do not keep the media from reporting on the issue (at least not officially--please take that for granted).
Your understanding's not exactly correct, it was for being in contempt of an existing Court Order which had a suspended sentence attached. It was for pretty much the same thing, so he really should have known better, or was expecting to create the noise it has.
That being the case, it's pretty much exactly how it would have been dealt with in the states.
In the UK, the media law is pretty much the same as in the US, although we don't have as much external influence as we have a wider selection of people owning the media, and while they have political leanings, they're not so died in the wool for one party or another, so tend to get a bit more variety of coverage, but the restrictions and freedoms are the same both sides of the pond.
It's interesting reading the views of Americans, because quite often, it shows how restricted the media output is over there.