New Jersey’s thought police are trying to make journalism a crime and the First Amendment is bleeding out in a Red Bank courtroom, where two journalists now face criminal charges for the radical act of refusing to erase history.
Kenny Katzgrau and Brian Donohue of Redbankgreen stand accused of “disorderly conduct” – a charge typically reserved for public drunks and vandals – because they dared to leave a factual police blotter entry online after the arrest in question was expunged.
This isn’t law enforcement. This is state-sponsored memory holing, a direct assault on press freedom so brazen it would make Stalin’s censors blush.
The facts are undisputed: RedBankGreen published the August 2024 police blotter in September 2024, as they’ve done for years.
The entry in question – an arrest that occurred, was documented, and was later expunged in March 2025 – remained online with a clear update noting the expungement and the standard disclaimer that arrests aren’t convictions. The RedBankGreen item has a notation stating that the arrest was expunged.
A similar report appeared on Rumson-Fair Haven Retrospect, where it remains without any notice that the matter had been expunged.
For this act of basic journalism, Municipal Court Judge Frank LaRocca – a man who apparently slept through his constitutional law classes – found probable cause to prosecute under New Jersey’s draconian expungement statute.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2001 decision in Bartnicki v. Vopper protects journalists who publish illegally obtained material, including, in most cases, where the journalist knows the illegal provenance of the material but did not participate in the illegal acquisition.
Let’s be clear about what’s happening here:
- The government is attempting to rewrite history by forcing journalists to unpublish factual information
- They’re using a misdemeanor charge typically applied to bar fights to punish legitimate news reporting
- They’re demanding private citizens do the state’s job of enforcing expungement orders
This isn’t just unconstitutional – it’s un-American.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that journalists can publish truthful information obtained legally, even when it involves:
✓ Juvenile court proceedings (Smith v. Daily Mail)
✓ Rape victims (Florida Star v. B.J.F.)
✓ Sealed documents (Bartnicki v. Vopper)
Yet in Red Bank, Judge LaRocca and complainant Kyle Pietila would have us believe that an expungement order – a legal fiction declaring an arrest “deemed to have not occurred” – somehow gives them the right to dictate editorial policy to independent journalists.
Kyle R. Pietila, 41, is a registered Republican in Red Bank, who features a picture of President Donald Trump on his Facebook page.
Pietila is a senior structured products syndicate at MUFG Americas Holdings Corporation, a subsidiary of the Japanese Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group conglomerate.
According to his LinkedIn profile, Pietila holds an MBA in Finance from the Gies College of Business at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science and Environmental Studies from Alma College.
This is the logic of authoritarian regimes, not constitutional democracies.
The implications are terrifying:
- Every news archive becomes a crime scene – Should the New York Times unpublish every article about arrests later expunged?
- Historical record gets erased – Will libraries need to redact old newspapers to comply?
- Government gains editorial control – This sets precedent for officials demanding removal of unfavorable coverage
Freedom of the Press Foundation’s Seth Stern nailed it: “Any prosecutors who would even think to bring such charges either don’t know the first thing about the Constitution they’re sworn to uphold, or don’t care.”
The same applies to Judge LaRocca, whose ruling demonstrates either shocking ignorance or willful contempt for bedrock First Amendment principles.
This isn’t an isolated incident – it’s part of a growing national pattern of local officials weaponizing the law against journalists:
- Mississippi tried forcing a paper to remove a critical editorial
- Los Angeles sued a journalist for publishing public records
- Kansas raided a newsroom over routine fact-checking
Red Bank’s power structure has revealed its true colors.
This assault on press freedom suggests that New Jersey’s governing class is declaring open season on journalism.
The good news? These charges won’t survive first contact with competent constitutional scrutiny. The bad news? Every minute spent fighting this frivolous prosecution is time stolen from actual journalism.
And that’s precisely the point – to drain small news outlets dry through legal harassment until they either capitulate or collapse.
Redbankgreen’s policy is correct: “Once information is published, it should stay published as-is unless a correction or clarification is warranted.”
The alternative – letting every aggrieved subject rewrite history through legal bullying – would render journalism impossible.
To the prosecutors pursuing this farce: You’re not protecting anyone. You’re vandalizing the First Amendment. Drop these charges before you become another footnote in America’s growing anthology of press freedom violations.
To the journalists: Stand firm. The Constitution stands with you. History will remember who fought for truth when the thought police came knocking.
To Kyle Pietila: We’re sorry you had an encounter with law enforcement and glad you have been exonerated, but this is not a smart way to protect your anonymity.