Iowa State's Attempt To Violate Its Students First Amendment Rights To Cost State Nearly $400k In Damages
from the money-well-spent dept
In the early part of 2017, we brought you the story of an Iowa State University student group pushing for marijuana reform in the state that was being targeted by the university for trademark infringement after the group used some school iconography on t-shirts it developed for its cause. The whole episode was fairly bonkers, with the school initially approving the students' use of the imagery, only to rescind that approval after Iowa House Republicans sent a letter to the school's leadership questioning the decision. That sort of infringement of speech by a school and, in the background, by state legislators that really should have known better, was always destined to result in legal proceedings, given the enormous First Amendment implications. Well, as we reported, that trial ran its course, including an appeal, and was decided in the favor of the student group.
While all of that was settled last year, what we didn't know until recently is just how much taxpayer money would be paid out as a result of a public university and state legislators seeking, quite plainly, to infringe on perhaps the most sacred right this country enjoys. Now we have an answer to that question: at least $350,000.
The State Appeal Board voted to pay $150,000 in damages to two leaders of the university chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws whose free-speech rights were violated by campus administrators. The board also approved a $193,000 payment to two law firms that represented the group for their efforts to defend against the university's unsuccessful appeals, and additional legal fees for their trial work in an amount to be decided by a judge.
The costs stem from what federal judges found were the university's politically motivated, illegal attempts to ban T-shirt designs that featured the Iowa State mascot and a small cannabis leaf — and its yearslong, unsuccessful defense of those efforts in court. The payouts will come from the state's general budget.
I will be severely disappointed in the state of Iowa if every House member that signed that letter to the school doesn't have campaign ads running against them highlighting the fact that this plainly unconstitutional action cost state taxpayers at least well over a quarter of a million dollars. Especially when you consider that the legal team for the student group practically begged the school to settle early on to avoid exactly these kinds of costs.
And that $350k figure is almost certainly just a starting point and not what the ultimate payout from the state will be.
"It is an unambiguous win for our clients and for the First Amendment and for an understanding that violating people's rights isn't free," said the plaintiffs' lead attorney, Robert Corn-Revere. "One reason we urge universities to settle early is to avoid these kinds of expenses."
He said he expects to request a fee award that is "substantially more" for trial work than the $193,000 awarded for the appeals, based on the amount of time spent. The deal requires the state to increase the amount awarded by $15,000 to compensate lawyers for their time spent on the fee application. The costs do not include work by the taxpayer-funded Iowa Attorney General's office, which represented former ISU President Steven Leath and three other administrators who were found responsible for the constitutional violations.
All of this because a school decided not to tell a bunch of meddling lawmakers to piss off and instead bowed to their unconstitutional requests. That this reliance on taxpayer money to resolve this mistake is on everyone's record will hopefully go some way to changes in job status for many of these people.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: free speech, iowa, marijuana reform, t-shirts, taxpayer money
Companies: iowa state
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So close... yet so far...
"One reason we urge universities to settle early is to avoid these kinds of expenses."
shouldn't it be "We urge universities to NOT VIOLATE STUDENTS RIGHTS IN THE FIRST DAMN PLACE"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So close... yet so far...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Assumed power is the most abused power
Having a position of power does not give one power. That a majority of the people concur with your position might give one power, at least temporarily, until it is found out what one actually proposes to do with the power assumed. Once the 'proletariat' finds out what you want to do with that power, it might rescind that power, even if it takes some time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Assumed power is the most abused power
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Assumed power is the most abused power
Today the political parties have some control, tomorrow the proletariat might understand what is going on. Then again it might be the year after tomorrow. It will happen, consensualy or violently. The tree of liberty will be refreshed, one way or another.
The other choice is to give in and let 'power' play it's game. I don't believe that will happen, in the long run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But the purse strings of the legislature are true power
What they didn't have to do is turn around and appeal. ... which is why we're getting a resolution 11 months after the initial decision. By the by, that original decision was obvious enough that the plaintiffs won on a summary judgement motion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The clients are getting $150,000 - hardly a small payout - but the lawyers are getting more than that for their work on the appeal alone. They expect the bill for the trial work to be substantially more than that, meaning the attorneys are getting probably around 3 times what their clients are getting. The attorneys are getting $15,000 - that's 10% of what their clients got - just for their work on the fee application. That's the equivalent of 2 guys working at $150 per hour for 50 hours.
Something has gone horribly wrong with our legal system if the cost for ONE side to bring a case to trial is more than the cost of a house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The orange mascot loves the "properly" educated: The people should get an education devoid of any progressive, liberal or "elitist" influences, because any of those might lead them to question the "proper" conservative ideology. Some might view this as "poorly educated," but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Denial of a problem does not make it go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In other words, there's still hope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where EXACTLY is the money coming from?
Is it coming from spare change from taxes? Is it coming out of an established liability fund? It better not be paid with a loan from the bank again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where EXACTLY is the money coming from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where EXACTLY is the money coming from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where EXACTLY is the money coming from?
It was in the story: "The payouts will come from the state's general budget."
There was no city involved, it was a university and a state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BOGUS
In which case, the students were actually harming the reputation of the school by using the trademark, which IS protected by law.
Otherwise, I could use any logo on any product to pretend that company support my position or my product. But I can't do that.
Lame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BOGUS
However the school singled out one group who's political stand it did not like (or the politicians told them not to like in this case) and said that one group was not allowed to do what other student groups were allowed to do.
You see this quite often with k-12 schools and religious groups. Once a school allows one religious group use school property they have to allow all of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BOGUS
*bows to Mr Cressman, the smartass*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BOGUS
I suggest you do some research on the First Amendment as it relates to parody, satire, and fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BOGUS
You're not only misquoting the "moron in a hurry" standard, you're using it to mean the opposite of what it actually means. "Only a moron in a hurry would be misled" means that there's not any trademark infringement.
It's also not applicable here. The "moron in a hurry" quote comes from a ruling that Daily Star is not so similar to Morning Star as to create confusion. If you want a case that's analogous to that, there are plenty of articles on Techdirt about litigious breweries.
This isn't a case where somebody created a completely new trademark and a university sued over it even though it was dissimilar. This is a case of a student organization using the university's actual trademarks, with permission, and then the university attempting to rescind that permission under government pressure. The "moron in a hurry" standard does not apply, at all.
Not if you're a public university, initially approve the use, and then try to rescind it due to political pressure from government officials who wish to impose a content-based restriction on speech.
Here's from the previous article linked in the first sentence:
If the school had rejected the use of its logos in the first place, and had a consistent position on doing so that applied to all student organizations, then it would be in the clear. That's not what happened. The school's decision to initially approve the use, and attempt to revoke permission only after it received pressure from the legislature, makes it clear that this was a government-imposed, content-based restriction of speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have you SEEN state legislators? Most of them have to be reminded to breathe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
To be fair, that comment seems to have been almost universally misinterpreted; most people seem to read it as an attempt to assert that rape can sometimes be legitimate, i.e., OK / acceptable / what-have-you.
Per Wikipedia, the actual quote is "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." - where "that whole thing" is, apparently, pregnancy.
As I understand matters, this is not an attempt to claim that "some rapes are OK"; it was "sexual interactions which legitimately qualify as rape rarely if ever result in pregnancy", with the distinction being versus e.g. "consensual sexual interactions which the woman later falsely claims were rape". Which is plainly idiotic, to a level I'd hope we wouldn't want in our elected representatives - but at least doesn't argue that rape is ever OK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, we're not. We're your mothers, sisters, aunts, and daughters, etc. Akin seems to think that only "good women" get raped but that's okay, their bodies magically shut unwanted pregnancies down. As for the rest, it's just buyer's regret, which is why inconvenient pregnancies take hold.
This is the logical endgame of the Prosperity Gospel, in which good people are rewarded materially in this life (and therefore bad people suffer because they deserve to).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I had the wrong stupid politician, my mistake.
As mentioned elsewhere, the problems with the statement are twofold, and "legitimate rape" is a little punchier than "a woman's body has ways of shutting that down".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
University's position: rock... meet hard place
And if you do violate rights. settle early.
BUT
You have to remember a lot of universities are political animals that have to cowtow to the morons holding the purse strings. In Iowa... it is DEFINITELY the republican lawmakers.
A perverse incentive exists when you have a gaggle of fools tell you they want you to do something and they hold the purse strings... Say no... well, that extra funding you were expecting magically dried up.
So while I disagree with the university's decision; one has to wonder if they made the right choice. I mean... the state is paying for their screw-up, not the university. And they didn't make any enemies with the lawmakers so their funding stream is intact...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“So close... yet so far...
The sad part:"One reason we urge universities to settle early is to avoid these kinds of expenses."
shouldn't it be "We urge universities to NOT VIOLATE STUDENTS RIGHTS IN THE FIRST DAMN PLACE"
made the Last Word by Ninja