According to Bobick, Fernandes "rang a bell and yelled 'shame' repeatedly as the image … was on screen" and later published the video online. … "[B]ased on a preponderance of the evidence … Bobick has offered sufficient evidence to support his request for a protection order." … "… [T]here is a basis for a protection order in this matter … [a]nd … there is not an appropriate use of free speech by [Fernandes]." … Fernandes argues that her activities that were the basis for the protection order were constitutionally protected, citing Catlett v. Teel (Wash. App. [But precedents involving defamation] are inapposite and Fernandes cites no other authority for the proposition that Bobick was required to prove defamation to obtain an antiharassment protection order ….