Appellate Court Strikes Down Broad Speech Restriction

A Washington State appellate panel has ruled that a lower court's prohibition on a man discussing his estranged family online “in any manner whatsoever” infringes upon First Amendment protections.

In an unpublished opinion issued March 31, 2026, Division Two of the Washington State Court of Appeals upheld the domestic violence protection orders issued against a local man while remanding the matter to Thurston County Superior Court. The appellate judges have directed the trial court to rewrite the speech restrictions to be more narrowly tailored.

History of Coercive Control Allegations

The consolidated appeal arises from a protracted legal dispute involving a man and his former wife, who finalized their divorce in 2012. Court records indicate the man has been subject to multiple domestic violence protection orders over the years, designed to safeguard his former spouse, their adult son, and their minor daughter. Prior proceedings have detailed allegations of coercive, aggressive, and emotionally manipulative behavior directed toward the family.

The adult son’s protection order lapsed in October 2023 upon his 18th birthday. In July 2024, the father published a video on YouTube addressed to his adult son. In that recording, he claimed that his former spouse had lied and suffered from narcissistic personality disorder, which he alleged was the cause of the unusual dynamic with his son.

Following the video's release, the former spouse and adult son sought new protection orders in Thurston County Superior Court. Judge Indu Thomas granted these orders, determining that the YouTube video constituted a form of “coercive control” intended to manipulate the family. To enforce this ruling, Judge Thomas ordered the removal of existing videos—a directive that was not appealed—and imposed a prospective ban on future content.

The specific language of the protection order stated that the man was “restrained from posting, sharing, transmitting to third parties or the like any videos or other such media which refers to the petitioner or the parties’ children, whether by name or otherwise in any manner whatsoever.”

First Amendment Challenge

The man, representing himself pro se in the appeal against counsel representing the respondents, challenged the prohibition on future posts, arguing that it violated his First Amendment rights. The Court of Appeals concurred with this assessment.

While the appellate court acknowledged that speech constituting domestic violence—such as coercive control—is unprotected, it determined that the trial court’s order was overly broad, restricting a significant amount of legally protected expression.

The panel classified the order as a “content-based restriction,” which is presumptively unconstitutional unless it passes strict scrutiny. To survive this standard, a government restriction must serve a compelling state interest and be narrowly tailored to serve that interest. While the court agreed that preventing domestic violence constitutes a compelling state interest, it ruled that the gag order was not narrowly tailored.

The appellate judges highlighted the extreme breadth of the phrase “in any manner whatsoever.” Under the literal interpretation of the order, the man could be held in violation for simply acknowledging that he was previously married or had children. He would be prohibited from engaging in a general discussion about parenting or even sending an email to a friend mentioning his ex-wife.

Furthermore, the court noted that the ban would unconstitutionally suppress political speech, as it would restrict the man from advocating online regarding his personal experiences with the family court system.

Relief Granted

The relief granted involves a remand of the case to the lower court for the purpose of rewriting the speech restrictions.

The appellate division upheld the lower court’s ruling that issued domestic violence protection orders on behalf of Karina and Aiden, thereby preserving the physical distance mandated between them and Couto.

In a partial reversal, the three-judge panel sent the matter back to the trial level to revise the provisions limiting speech related to video content and media. The higher court clarified that while the revised order can continue to bar expressions that amount to domestic violence or coercive control, it must be drafted with sufficient precision to safeguard Couto’s First Amendment rights in all other areas.

Additionally, the panel rejected Couto’s argument that the case should be transferred to a different judge or jurisdiction upon remand. The appellate judges determined there was no basis to suggest that Judge Thomas lacked impartiality.

An unpublished version of the ruling is accessible through court records.