Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of Olympic Herald Journalist's Motion
In a major victory for press freedom and First Amendment rights, the Washington State Court of Appeals Division II has granted a motion to publish a pivotal decision regarding the constitutional limits of civil protection orders.
As an investigative journalist for The Olympic Herald, I spearheaded this motion, with additional support from public interest advocates.
The newly published opinion, stemming from the consolidated cases of Asbach v. Couto, establishes crucial statewide precedent. It clarifies how trial courts must balance the state’s interest in preventing domestic violence with the free speech rights of citizens in the digital age.
The Core of the Case
The underlying dispute involved Domestic Violence Protection Orders granted to Karina and Aiden Asbach against Adam Couto.
The trial court found that Couto engaged in “coercive control” by, among other things, posting a public YouTube video regarding his estranged family.
Under Washington’s recently expanded domestic violence statute, RCW 7.105, “coercive control” is defined as a pattern of behavior that causes emotional or psychological harm and unreasonably interferes with a person’s free will.
In granting the DVPOs, the trial court ordered Couto to remove the existing video. However, the court went further, imposing a prospective restriction that restrained him from posting, sharing, or transmitting “any videos or other such media which refers to the petitioner or the parties’ children, whether by name or otherwise, in any manner whatsoever.”
On March 31, 2026, the Court of Appeals issued an unpublished decision affirming the DVPOs generally but striking down the blanket restriction on Couto’s future online postings.
The Court held that prohibiting a citizen from discussing their family “in any manner whatsoever” was not narrowly tailored and constituted an unconstitutional content-based restriction under the First Amendment.
The Olympic Herald’s Fight for Publication
Because the March 31 decision was initially unpublished, it could not serve as binding precedent for future cases.
Recognizing the critical First Amendment implications, as an investigative journalist, recognized member of the Society of Professional Journalists, and publisher of The Olympic Herald, I filed a Non-Party Motion to Publish the opinion.
I argued that the 2022 legislative overhaul of RCW 7.105 has inadvertently caused confusion among trial courts, occasionally leading to the unconstitutional censorship of protected speech under the guise of preventing “coercive control.”
I emphasized that the press and the public share a vital interest in clearly defining the constitutional boundaries of speech, ensuring that journalists and citizens can scrutinize court proceedings and publish on matters of public concern without fear of unlawful prior restraints.
“Binding precedent that strictly curtails this is of paramount public importance,” I stated in my motion, asserting that the protections articulated in previous case law must apply with equal force to modern digital media.
Support from Victim Advocates
The push to publish the decision also garnered significant support from the advocacy community. Gina Bloom, a legislative lobbyist, certified crime victim advocate, and parenting coordinator, filed a separate motion urging the Court to publish the opinion.
Bloom highlighted a counterintuitive but severe consequence of overly broad gag orders: they frequently punish the very victims they are designed to protect.
Bloom pointed out that in modern family court litigation, when victims speak publicly about their abuse, criticize institutional failures, or advocate for reform, their speech is increasingly weaponized against them and labeled as “harassment” or “coercive control.”
By publishing the decision, Bloom argued, the Court provides essential guidance that “victims do not forfeit their constitutional right to speak publicly about abuse, family court experiences, or perceived failures of the legal system merely because the opposing party finds such speech unwelcome.”
The Court’s acknowledgment that public discussion of perceived family court bias constitutes protected political expression is a massive victory for public advocacy.
Binding Precedent
On May 12, 2026, the Court of Appeals officially granted the motions, ordering the opinion to be published in the Washington Appellate Reports.
This ruling ensures that while courts remain empowered to prohibit unprotected conduct—such as true threats, stalking, and actual domestic violence—they cannot issue sweeping bans that chill lawful advocacy, investigative journalism, or a citizen’s fundamental right to free expression.
Thanks to the diligent efforts of The Olympic Herald and allied advocates, Washington’s legal framework now has a robust and clearly defined constitutional guardrail for the digital age.
Nice! Congratulations on a job very well done by everyone involved.
What did we ever do before The Olympic Herald? I don't know, but i don't want those days back. So grateful for grass roots journalism. Great job with this!