Court Rules Injunction Against Online References to Ex-Wife and Children Violates First Amendment

The Washington Court of Appeals has ruled that an injunction prohibiting a man from referring to his ex-wife and children online violates the First Amendment. The court found the order overly broad, as it restricted speech unrelated to coercive behavior. The case stems from a contentious divorce involving domestic violence protection orders (DVPOs) against Couto, who was barred from posting content about Karina, Aiden, or NC in any form. While the court upheld DVPOs aimed at preventing domestic violence, it concluded that the restrictions on speech were not narrowly tailored and could chill protected expression. The ruling emphasizes the balance between public safety and constitutional rights, requiring courts to craft clearer orders that target harmful conduct while preserving free speech.

The trial court had granted DVPOs to Karina and Aiden based on Couto’s history of aggressive behavior, including coercive online communications. However, the appellate court determined that the injunction went beyond necessary protections by prohibiting any mention of Karina or the children in media, even in contexts unrelated to domestic violence. This could prevent Couto from discussing his experiences with the family court system or advocating against perceived biases, which are forms of political speech protected under the First Amendment.

The appellate judges acknowledged the state’s compelling interest in preventing domestic violence but argued that the original orders were not narrowly tailored. They instructed the trial court to revise the injunctions on remand, ensuring they only restrict speech that directly constitutes coercive control or threats. The ruling highlights the importance of protecting free expression while addressing harmful behavior, setting a precedent for future cases involving online speech and domestic violence protections.