Media Access and Transparency at Clallam County Superior Court

Clallam County Superior Court has increasingly prioritized selective communication over broad transparency, drawing scrutiny at a time when open access to judicial operations remains a core constitutional expectation.

Presiding Judge Barnhart has not fully addressed lingering practices from former Presiding Judge Basden’s tenure, particularly how court staff manage relationships with news organizations. Critics in the media have reportedly faced growing distances from official channels, while outlets aligned with the court receive preferential access.

The Real Olympic Herald, long recognized for its consistent and in-depth coverage of court operations—including administrative decisions and personnel shifts—has been notably left off key distribution lists. This omission coincides with a broader effort to reshape the court’s digital presence, including a phased decline of its once-active Facebook platform, limiting public engagement and archival access.

Strategic Exclusion in Press Circles

A clear turning point came on February 11, 2026, when The Real Olympic Herald submitted a formal request to join the court’s official media mailing list. Exactly seven days later, Court Administrator Lacey Halberg circulated a memorial announcement regarding retired Judge Lauren Erickson’s passing.

Judge Erickson, the first woman to serve on Clallam County’s Superior Court bench, was widely admired for her legal acumen, thoughtful courtroom demeanor, and consistent efforts to ensure fairness for all who appeared before her. Her death marked a meaningful loss for the community, yet her obituary was shared only with a narrow set of outlets.

The selected recipients included the Peninsula Daily News, the Forks Forum-Herald, KONP radio, and the Sequim Gazette—leaving The Real Olympic Herald out entirely. This omission followed months of the Real Olympic Herald’s investigative work, which helped spotlight misconduct by former Court Commissioner Brian Parker and catalyzed public protests leading to his departure.

Notably, three of the four media partners receiving the release fall under Carpenter Media Group, a regional chain headquartered outside the state. Though each outlet maintains local reporters committed to community service, their editorial autonomy has diminished under corporate oversight.

That dynamic was evident during the earlier handling of Parker’s criminal investigation. Despite access to key documents and sources, the Carpenter-owned outlets largely deferred to central directives, resulting in minimal coverage of the commissioner’s background and conduct.

Balancing Access and Discretion

While the Constitution does not guarantee journalists unfettered access to government information beyond what is made publicly available, courts are still bound by First Amendment principles when curating media relationships. Government entities may not use press access as a tool for reward or punishment without justification—especially when doing so shapes public understanding of judicial functions.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has consistently held that newsgathering falls under First Amendment protections, a right that includes press access to observe government operations. When agencies establish systems for sharing information, such as media distribution lists, they designate a specific channel for journalistic use. Federal courts, as established in the 1977 case Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124 (D.C. Cir.), ruled that governments cannot arbitrarily deny access to legitimate journalists. Excluding a credentialed outlet without a compelling, neutrally applied administrative justification violates constitutional principles.

Efforts to Silence Digital Public Discourse

The administration's resistance to criticism has extended beyond the press to the general public of Clallam County. During the same week the Real Olympic Herald was excluded from the media list, the court administration manipulated its official Facebook page to silence constituents angered by the Brian Parker scandal. The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that platforms like Facebook offer powerful mechanisms for private citizens to make their voices heard. In Packingham v. North Carolina, the Court noted that such digital forums enable individuals to directly petition and engage with elected representatives. Instead of encouraging this democratic participation, the Clallam County Superior Court attempted to suppress it.

Internal emails from the morning of Friday, February 13, revealed an urgent effort to restrict access. Deputy Court Administrator Kaysey Clayton messaged the Clallam County IT Department, stating she was unable to disable comments herself and requesting that all commenting be turned off immediately. She asked that Court Administrator Lacey Halberg and Presiding Judge Simon Barnhart be notified once the restriction was in place. When IT explained that globally shutting off public commenting was not possible, the court moved to remove specific content.

Halberg instructed IT to remove pictures from the page, specifically a January 9, 2025 post regarding the swearing-in of Judge Elizabeth Stanley. The administrator had utilized Facebook’s comment restrictions to ensure only favorable messages appeared while blocking critical ones. Because comments could not be isolated from the image, IT advised that the entire post must be deleted. To justify the removal, IT staff cited Clallam County Policy 420, Section 9.4, which states the county reserves the right to limit or remove posted content at any time without notice and prohibits vulgar, offensive, threatening, harassing, anonymous, or profane content. By prohibiting broadly defined offensive or profane speech, the policy effectively outlaws heated political or personal commentary that occurs when citizens discuss government matters. When officials use social media for official business, they cannot silence users simply because they disagree with their perspectives.

Supreme Court Affirms Public Officials’ Social Media Censorship Rights—Then Faces Pushback

In 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in *Lindke v. Freed* that government employees may restrict citizens’ speech on platforms like Facebook and X without breaching constitutional protections, provided the officials are acting in their official capacity. This precedent set the stage for a broader interpretation of permissible government control over digital public forums.

A subsequent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington in *Leighty v. Spokane County* reinforced that such speech restrictions can carry financial consequences for governmental entities. There, the court found the county liable for damages after its sheriff’s office removed critical remarks on its Facebook page—effectively concealing dissenting voices from public view.

These dynamics now extend to Clallam County Superior Court, where judges have deployed similar tactics to suppress commentary related to the Brian Parker investigation. The court’s approach mirrors the same constitutional framework upheld in *Lindke* and *Leighty*: selective moderation that prioritizes favorable narratives while minimizing dissent.

Viewpoint-Based Censorship Across Platforms

The core legal issue unifying these cases is viewpoint discrimination—the practice of restricting speech based on the speaker’s ideological orientation or stance toward a policy, official, or institution. Courts have consistently held that when officials use social media for official business—posting updates, responding to inquiries, or soliciting public input—they open a public forum that cannot be selectively curated to favor compliant voices.

The Second Circuit’s reasoning in *Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump* remains central: if an official uses a digital platform for a broad range of governmental functions, excluding individuals solely for expressing opposing views violates the First Amendment. Vague criteria—such as labeling critiques as “disruptive” or “unprofessional”—do not suffice to justify silencing critics, a principle confirmed in *Robinson v. Hunt County*.

Recent developments reinforce this standard. In *New York Times Company v. Department of Defense*, U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman invalidated a policy that allowed agencies to filter reporters based on perceived alignment with administration priorities. He described the mechanism as “viewpoint discrimination, full stop,” underscoring that administrative discretion must operate within constitutional guardrails.

Courts Embrace Strategic Silence

Rather than adapt its practices to meet constitutional expectations, Clallam County Superior Court opted for a more decisive intervention: the complete removal of its official Facebook presence. This move came after repeated instances of comment suppression tied to the Brian Parker case, including the deletion of user-submitted posts and the reclassification of certain accounts to limit their visibility.

Legal experts note that such actions reflect a growing trend among public institutions to treat transparency as optional rather than mandatory. Yet constitutional doctrine makes clear: agencies cannot retreat from scrutiny or dismantle public forums simply because the resulting discourse proves inconvenient or critical.

The First Amendment does not shield governments from discomfort—it demands that they engage with it. As a result, The Real Olympic Herald is reviewing potential legal strategies to hold the court accountable, including formal complaints, advocacy efforts, and possible litigation aimed at reinstating robust public access to court communications.

Ongoing reporting on Clallam County Superior Court remains a priority, with continued documentation of administrative actions and their impact on civic participation. The Real Olympic Herald reaffirms its dedication to illuminating how local judicial institutions operate in the public’s name—and ensuring those operations remain subject to democratic oversight.