Washington Court Rules Social Media Restrictions in DVPO Violate First Amendment Rights

The Washington Court of Appeals has issued a landmark decision in Asbach v. Couto, ruling that a trial court’s sweeping prohibition on a father posting about his ex-wife and children on social media violated his First Amendment rights. The ruling, approved for publication on [DATE], was authored by Judge Bradley Maxa, joined by Chief Judge Bernard Veljacic and Judge Erik Price.

Background: A Contentious Divorce and Multiple DVPOs

Couto and his ex-wife, Karina, divorced in 2012. Since then, Couto has been subject to multiple Domestic Violence Protection Orders (DVPOs) related to Karina, their now-adult son Aiden, and their minor daughter NC. Court records and testimony from prior DVPO proceedings reveal a pattern of aggressive and emotionally abusive behavior, including screaming at family members, throwing objects, brandishing a knife, and engaging in coercive and manipulative conduct.

Aiden’s DVPO expired in 2023 when he reached adulthood. In 2024, Couto published a YouTube video attempting to reconnect with Aiden, in which he alleged that Karina had narcissistic personality disorder and engaged in dishonesty. Couto framed the video as a gesture of reconciliation.

Trial Court’s Ruling and Subsequent Appeals

Following the video’s release, Karina filed petitions to renew her DVPO and extend NC’s existing order. Aiden also filed a petition for a new DVPO, citing the YouTube video and alleging that Couto had appeared at Aiden’s workplace and at a grocery store where NC was present. The trial court granted the DVPOs for Karina and Aiden and renewed NC’s DVPO for one year, which Couto had agreed to in a stipulation.

The trial court determined that Couto’s YouTube video constituted a form of coercive control. As part of the DVPOs, the court ordered Couto to remove the video—a provision he did not challenge—and prohibited him from posting or sharing any future media referencing Karina, Aiden, or NC.

Appeals Court Upholds DVPOs but Strikes Down Overbroad Social Media Ban

The Washington Court of Appeals issued a split decision:

• The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting DVPOs to Karina and Aiden, nor did it err in awarding attorney fees to Karina for the renewal of NC’s DVPO.
• The trial court’s blanket prohibition on posting media about Karina, Aiden, or NC violates the First Amendment and must be narrowed to address constitutional concerns.

In its ruling, the appeals court acknowledged the state’s compelling interest in preventing domestic violence and enforcing civil protection orders. However, it found that the trial court’s order was not narrowly tailored to serve that interest without infringing on Couto’s constitutional rights.

Why the Social Media Restriction Was Struck Down

The appeals court identified the restriction as a content-based prior restraint on speech, stating that it prohibits Couto from discussing specific topics—namely, his ex-wife and children—regardless of the message conveyed. The court wrote:

"The trial court's orders specifically prohibit Couto from posting media 'which refers to the petitioner or the parties' children, whether by name or otherwise, in any manner whatsoever.' This is a content-based restriction because it 'applies to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed.'"

The court concluded that while the state has a legitimate interest in preventing domestic violence, the blanket ban on all references to his family in any media format was overly broad and not the least restrictive means to achieve that goal.

What This Ruling Means for Free Speech and Domestic Violence Protections

The decision underscores the tension between protecting victims of domestic violence and safeguarding constitutional free speech rights. While the appeals court upheld the DVPOs against Couto, it emphasized that restrictions on speech must be carefully drafted to avoid violating the First Amendment. The ruling requires the trial court to revise the order to ensure any limitations on Couto’s speech are narrowly tailored and directly related to preventing harm.