A King County Superior Court has issued an order that protects a mass murder suspect at the expense of press freedom and your right to know about a potential threat. The decision was made without media representation and is completely unconstitutional. But that may be the least of your worries.

In a stunning and disturbing ruling, Judge Joe Campagna ordered the media not to name the 15-year-old suspect in the brutal mass murder of five family members in Fall City. Police said he murdered his parents, his 9- and 13-year-old brothers, and his 7-year-old sister. A fourth sibling, her 11-year-old sister, said her brother killed the family and shot her, although she survived by playing dead before running away.

The juvenile suspect was charged with five counts of aggravated first-degree murder and attempted murder.

At a hearing, the defense attorney requested an order barring the media from identifying the suspect. The judge granted the request, even though no lawyer representing media interests was present. Indeed, the media were not even informed of this possible order, which meant that we could not organize or present an opposition. The court didn’t even distribute the order to the media, almost as if we were trapped.

Why is Judge Joe Campagna protecting young Fall City mass murder suspect?

This order constitutes a blatant affront to the principles of freedom of expression and the public’s right to information. Protecting the identity of a suspect in a mass murder case, especially when his name is already public in legal documents, is a decision that invites serious opposition. If the suspect is convicted, due to his age, he could be released from prison in 25 years – an age where he will still be considered a threat.

So why is Judge Joe Campagna protecting a mass murder suspect?

Historically, media censorship orders like this are rare and subject to rigorous constitutional review. The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press to report on matters of public concern. This principle has been confirmed several times, in cases like Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976) setting a high bar for any court order restricting press freedom.

The Supreme Court held that such prior restraint constituted “the most serious and least tolerable infringement” of First Amendment rights, noting that the government must demonstrate a clear and present danger to justify silencing the press.

Here, there is no government interest significant enough to override media rights.

There is no reasonable argument to prohibit the media from reporting on the young suspect in the Fall City mass murder.

According to Judge Campagna, what public benefit can be obtained by hiding the name of a person already documented and indicted in open court? That the suspect avoids media attention so that after his trial he receives a societal pass? Sorry, but the family deserved the pass, not their alleged murderer.

Judge Campagna’s decision is also in contradiction with public access to criminal proceedings, as highlighted in the judgment Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia (1980), where the court emphasized that criminal trials must be open to public scrutiny, thereby ensuring transparency. The suspect’s identity is already disclosed in court documents; attempting to block media reporting on this open information disregards established case law in favor of public access to legal proceedings.

While Judge Campagna aims to protect the suspect’s privacy, that reasoning collapses when faced with the brutal reality of the crime: Five family members were shot, and a survivor recounted horrific details implicating the suspect. Why does he deserve anonymity? It wasn’t a minor who stole a Snickers at a 7-Eleven; he is accused of systematically and intentionally executing his entire family and of trying to frame his younger brother.

More bad decisions to come

With this decision, we are all but assured of two inevitable next steps.

First, in any case involving a minor suspect, you can count on defense attorneys seeking the same privacy protections so their clients can escape media scrutiny. Why wouldn’t they? If a judge is willing to exercise such blatant judgment by placing more emphasis on the invented rights of the accused than the literal rights of the press, others will follow. King County judges already proudly rely on far-left notions of justice. This will provide more incentive to continue.

Second, Democratic lawmakers may now be encouraged to create a legal exemption for minors accused of criminal conduct. They have already adopted numerous policies ensuring that young criminals get as many passes as possible. We don’t even lock even dangerous juvenile criminals in adult prisons until they are 25 years old. Is it hard to believe that Democratic lawmakers would try to offer more protections to suspects and minor criminals?

A frightening and unconstitutional precedent

There is no denying the public’s interest in knowing the identity of the Fall City mass murder suspect, especially when these individuals are generally not eligible for significant prison time. In Washington, life sentences or, at a minimum, decades-long sentences are expected for such serious charges. Still, he may only serve a maximum sentence of 25 years. Imagine the horror of the public, unaware of his identity, who finds him years later, perhaps as a neighbor, co-worker or boyfriend, because he received undeserved protection during his trial.

When we hear about a horrific crime like this, we instinctively want answers. Suppressing the identity of the accused not only deprives the public of vital information, but also undermines the credibility of the justice system. Society has the right to understand the extent of the violence committed and to identify those responsible. His surviving family members should have the right to speak to the press without us having to censor them, if they choose to use the suspect’s name.

Justice cannot only serve the accused; it must represent victims and the broader community in reporting crimes and ensuring they are not covered up by protection orders that defy logic and legality. Ultimately, Judge Joe Campagna’s decision raises a critical question: Where does the line lie between judicial discretion and the First Amendment’s promise of transparency? In the King County courtroom, there appears to be no line, but rather a mandate that the press cannot do its job.

Listen to The Jason Rantz Show weekday afternoons from 3-7 p.m. on KTTH 770 AM (HD Radio 97.3 FM HD-Channel 3). Subscribe to podcast here. Follow Jason Rantz on X, Instagram, YouTube And Facebook.

Follow @