DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970 | 1970-08-28 Daily Iowan Article: ""Argue Freedom of Speech-- Injunction Briefs Filed""

Transcribe
Translate

University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970

1970-08-28 Daily Iowan Article: ""Argue Freedom of Speech-- Injunction Briefs Filed""

DI
Aug. 28, 1970
Argue Freedom of Speech—
Injunction Briefs Filed
By Kristelle Petersen
DI City-University Editor
Prosecution and defense attorneys filed final briefs Thursday on the controversial injunction issued by the Johnson County District Court during disturbances here last May.
Briefs for both sides centered on issues of freedom of speech and assembly.
The temporary injunction, issued on behalf of the city on May 6, restrains 22 students allegedly involved in the spring activities and five university organizations from any disruption, obstruction, incitement or destruction of property.
Hearings were held Aug. 5 and 6 in Johnson County District Court before Judge Harold D. Vietor. At those hearings, City Atty. Jay Honohan, seeking to establish that disturbances even more severe than those in May will hit the university this fall, requested orders making the injunction permanent.
Kingsley Clarke Jr. and F. Kelly Smith, cooperating attorneys for the Hawkeye Area Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, represented the students named on the injunction.
Clarke, who initially appeared in court to present a brief on the constitutional issues involved in the case, and not as a defense attorney, said Vietor told him that because of the serious implications of the case the students should be represented. Vietor then asked Clarke to represent them.
Clarke and Smith argued in their written brief that the injunction violated the U.S. Constitution because it affects "the rights of constitutionally protected free speech," is "vague" and "overbroad" and has no "ascertainable standards for regulation of conduct."
They argued that the injunction, which prohibits picketing and the holding of assemblies or demonstrations —both constitutionally protected free speech activities — is unconstitutional.
They said, "The order is so broad as to include everyone and anyone within the jurisdiction of the court . . . "No person having knowledge of the order can, without fear of punishment, engage in clearly constitutionally protected free speech activity if it conceivably 'hinders or interferes' with the University of Iowa or townspeople," defense attorneys stated in arguing the ambiguity of the injunction.
"The injunction confers virtually unbridled discretion on the officials of the city of Iowa City and the University of Iowa without the guidance of any criteria or standard whatsoever," they added.
They pointed out that the "events to which the injunction was directed are over, and no current danger justifies its existence."
They also said that " . . . the city of Iowa City is attempting to restrain a nebulous group of person and groups from committing acts which are either illegal and punishable by criminal sanctions or are legal and constitutionally protected."
In their concluding remarks, Clarke and Smith cited evidence admitted by Honohan in the case as "parasitic gossip of federal, state and local police agencies."
At an Aug. 6 injunction hearing Iowa City Police Chief Patrick McCarney testified that oral reports from informants of the Iowa Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) had led him to believe that because of dissidents the "Univerity of Iowa will be closed after the second week after it opens" in the fall.
At a meeting Wednesday with two members of the Social Concerns Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, city officials, Daily Iowan editor Leona Durham and Press-Citizen editor William Eginton, McCarney reversed that testimony.
Telling the group Wednesday that sawed-off shotguns and tear gas grenades —recent acquisitions of the police department —were not obtained to cope with student disorders this fall, he said he did not believe the university would be shut down.
He said he thought that it would be an "entirely different ballgame in the fall than in the spring and indicated that he did not expect the campus to be a particularly troublesome area.
In his argument Honohan contended that the first and fourteenth amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly "do not afford the same kind of freedom to those who would communicate ideas by parades, marching and picketing on streets and highways as they do to those who communicate by pure speech."
"Freedom of speech protection does not extend to all conduct when the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea," he added.
Citing the testimony of McCarney at the hearing and that of Iowa State Highway Patrol Capt. Lyle Dickinson as well as university and city detectives, Honohan argued that the city has "clearly established" the probability that there will be disruption at the university this fall and the "need for the injunction being made permanent."
Dickinson testified at the hearings, "There's no question in my mind there'll be something going again (this fall.)"
According to Honohan, "reliable information and rumors and disclosures from other governmental organizations and informers indicate" that students will attempt to close down the university during October.
Refuting suggestions that the city is attempting to suppress free speech of the defendants, Honohan replied "Hogwash". 
He noted that the city council has "bent over backwards" to grant and has never refused a parade permit or a permit for a rally in the park requested by students.
In an addenda to his brief, Honohan challenged the source and accuracy of a news story in Thursday's Daily Iowan on the new police weapons.
Durham, who wrote the story, said it was not bylined because it is "awkward to discuss yourself in the third person," and because she thought, in addition, that the story probably didn't warrant one. "It wasn't that hard a story to get," she said.
"I reported my impressions of the situation as accurately as I could. They left the impression with me that they did not expect any trouble this fall," she added.
Egington, who wrote a story for the Press-Citizen on the police weapons corroborating many of the points in Durham's article, said his story was not bylined because he thought it "was not a very good story."

Saving...

DI Aug. 28, 1970 Argue Freedom of Speech— Injunction Briefs Filed By Kristelle Petersen DI City-University Editor Prosecution and defense attorneys filed final briefs Thursday on the controversial injunction issued by the Johnson County District Court during disturbances here last May. Briefs for both sides centered on issues of freedom of speech and assembly. The temporary injunction, issued on behalf of the city on May 6, restrains 22 students allegedly involved in the spring activities and five university organizations from any disruption, obstruction, incitement or destruction of property. Hearings were held Aug. 5 and 6 in Johnson County District Court before Judge Harold D. Vietor. At those hearings, City Atty. Jay Honohan, seeking to establish that disturbances even more severe than those in May will hit the university this fall, requested orders making the injunction permanent. Kingsley Clarke Jr. and F. Kelly Smith, cooperating attorneys for the Hawkeye Area Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, represented the students named on the injunction. Clarke, who initially appeared in court to present a brief on the constitutional issues involved in the case, and not as a defense attorney, said Vietor told him that because of the serious implications of the case the students should be represented. Vietor then asked Clarke to represent them. Clarke and Smith argued in their written brief that the injunction violated the U.S. Constitution because it affects "the rights of constitutionally protected free speech," is "vague" and "overbroad" and has no "ascertainable standards for regulation of conduct." They argued that the injunction, which prohibits picketing and the holding of assemblies or demonstrations —both constitutionally protected free speech activities — is unconstitutional. They said, "The order is so broad as to include everyone and anyone within the jurisdiction of the court . . . "No person having knowledge of the order can, without fear of punishment, engage in clearly constitutionally protected free speech activity if it conceivably 'hinders or interferes' with the University of Iowa or townspeople," defense attorneys stated in arguing the ambiguity of the injunction. "The injunction confers virtually unbridled discretion on the officials of the city of Iowa City and the University of Iowa without the guidance of any criteria or standard whatsoever," they added. They pointed out that the "events to which the injunction was directed are over, and no current danger justifies its existence." They also said that " . . . the city of Iowa City is attempting to restrain a nebulous group of person and groups from committing acts which are either illegal and punishable by criminal sanctions or are legal and constitutionally protected." In their concluding remarks, Clarke and Smith cited evidence admitted by Honohan in the case as "parasitic gossip of federal, state and local police agencies." At an Aug. 6 injunction hearing Iowa City Police Chief Patrick McCarney testified that oral reports from informants of the Iowa Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) had led him to believe that because of dissidents the "Univerity of Iowa will be closed after the second week after it opens" in the fall. At a meeting Wednesday with two members of the Social Concerns Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, city officials, Daily Iowan editor Leona Durham and Press-Citizen editor William Eginton, McCarney reversed that testimony. Telling the group Wednesday that sawed-off shotguns and tear gas grenades —recent acquisitions of the police department —were not obtained to cope with student disorders this fall, he said he did not believe the university would be shut down. He said he thought that it would be an "entirely different ballgame in the fall than in the spring and indicated that he did not expect the campus to be a particularly troublesome area. In his argument Honohan contended that the first and fourteenth amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly "do not afford the same kind of freedom to those who would communicate ideas by parades, marching and picketing on streets and highways as they do to those who communicate by pure speech." "Freedom of speech protection does not extend to all conduct when the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea," he added. Citing the testimony of McCarney at the hearing and that of Iowa State Highway Patrol Capt. Lyle Dickinson as well as university and city detectives, Honohan argued that the city has "clearly established" the probability that there will be disruption at the university this fall and the "need for the injunction being made permanent." Dickinson testified at the hearings, "There's no question in my mind there'll be something going again (this fall.)" According to Honohan, "reliable information and rumors and disclosures from other governmental organizations and informers indicate" that students will attempt to close down the university during October. Refuting suggestions that the city is attempting to suppress free speech of the defendants, Honohan replied "Hogwash". He noted that the city council has "bent over backwards" to grant and has never refused a parade permit or a permit for a rally in the park requested by students. In an addenda to his brief, Honohan challenged the source and accuracy of a news story in Thursday's Daily Iowan on the new police weapons. Durham, who wrote the story, said it was not bylined because it is "awkward to discuss yourself in the third person," and because she thought, in addition, that the story probably didn't warrant one. "It wasn't that hard a story to get," she said. "I reported my impressions of the situation as accurately as I could. They left the impression with me that they did not expect any trouble this fall," she added. Egington, who wrote a story for the Press-Citizen on the police weapons corroborating many of the points in Durham's article, said his story was not bylined because he thought it "was not a very good story."