Iowa College Grants Hecklers More Veto Power, Resulting In Summoning Of Campus Police To Offending 'Free Speech Wall'

from the taking-your-words-into-custody dept

Last December, an artistic piece appeared on the University of Iowa (UI) campus that rubbed a whole lot of people the wrong way. It resembled a hooded KKK member and was constructed from newspapers containing stories on racial violence. UI, being a typical university, removed and condemned the artwork, apparently unable to see anything past the shape of the object -- like the subtext or even what its own condemnation meant in this context. (It was this effigy that prompted a completely ridiculous/trollicious response at Thought Catalog -- one that compared free speech to Nazism.)

The school went on to soothe its thin skin by inviting its students -- especially those with equally thin skin/inability to contextualize artistic statements -- to come up with more ideas for repressing further free speech.

Emails obtained Wednesday by The Gazette reveal UI administrators sent that draft to student leaders who had expressed indignation over the effigy, asking for “suggestions.” The students sent a “response draft” with a handful of changes and stronger language.

UI Vice President for Student Life Tom Rocklin said in internal emails that “some of what they have written, I think, is out of the question.”

The students, for example, suggested [President Sally] Mason call the statue a “portrayal of hate” and say “this action of an individual at an educational institution at the pedestal of the Pentacrest was not and will never be tolerated.”

They also suggested Mason call for an investigation.

Fortunately, most of the suggestions were never implemented. But the university still forced the artist -- a visiting professor who was on hand during the controversial effigy's very brief appearance on campus to answer questions and explain his motivations -- to remove it from the campus' informal free speech area, called the "Pentacrest."

The better news is that another local college -- Kirkwood University -- has found a home for Professor Serhat Tanyolacar's artwork.

Titled, "Fear of Art: Free Speech, Controversy and Public Space," the forum attracted about 150 Kirkwood faculty, students and community members — who posed dozens of questions after a 30-minute opening statement from Tanyolacar.

UI, meanwhile, maintains that it didn't remove the effigy because it was supposedly offensive, but because Tanyolacar didn't ask its permission before exercising his First Amendment rights. The administration also claims that if it had been asked, it would have granted its permission. This, of course, can't be proven after the fact, so it's a safe thing to say, even if most people don't believe a word of it.

What the university has done with its swift removal of protected expression in response to a heckler's veto is provide the student body with a blueprint for further attacks on free speech. FIRE's (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) Ari Cohn phrases it this way:

@uiowa has turned its students into such anti-#freespeech goblins that they are calling police to report suspected unregistered protests.

If you don't like something, start tattling.

University of Iowa police Lt. Joe Lang, who was on scene at the demonstration, said the police were called to the event because someone saw the demonstration and decided to report it.

“We’re out here to make sure they went through the proper channels to get permission for this demonstration,” he said “We’re protecting the vested interest of the university; we just want to avoid a situation similar to what happened a few months ago.”

The "demonstration?" A public "free speech wall" where any student could write down anything he or she wanted to, provided -- with permission from the university -- by the school chapter of the Young Americans for Liberty. But someone (or someones) on campus would rather shut down free speech -- using law enforcement, no less -- than deal with the possibility that someone might be offended.

This is the culture that is indulged by the University of Iowa. It claims (like many other schools that say one thing and do another) to be a supporter of free expression, but its previous actions show nearly no heckler will be denied his or her veto power. The school has decided -- through its statements and actions -- that free speech can only be defended if it's popular speech. UI's president, Sally Mason, has already gone so far as to apologize to students who felt "terrorized" by Tanyolacar's "unauthorized" artwork. In complete seriousness, she also claimed to support free speech while simultaneously asserting that the UI campus was no place for "divisive or insensitive displays."

The censoring of Tanyolacar's artwork has already produced a chilling effect on free expression, as is evidenced by the summoning of police to a free speech "demonstration." The campus cops are already geared up to "prevent" students from being "terrorized" by protected speech. And now a certain subset of students has been given more power than they can responsibly handle. It's clear which "side" of free speech the college has chosen to throw its weight behind: the side that limits, rather than encourages, an open exchange of ideas.

Filed Under: colleges, free speech, heckler's veto, iowa
Companies: university of iowa

Iowa Dept. Of Transportation Announces Plan To Give Police Officers, Security Personnel Full Access To Your Smartphone

from the privacy-is-so-20th-century dept

Raise your hand if you think this might be a bad idea.

Iowans will soon be able to use a mobile app on their smartphones as their official driver's license issued by the Iowa Department of Transportation.

People will still be able to stick a traditional plastic driver's license in their wallet or purse if they choose, [DOT Director Paul] Trombino said. But the new digital license, which he described as "an identity vault app," will be accepted by Iowa law enforcement officers during traffic stops and by security officers screening travelers at Iowa's airports, he said.

Nowhere in the course of the Des Moines Register article are any concerns expressed about potential abuse by law enforcement. Perhaps that's due to the sole source being Paul Trombino of the Dept. of Transportation -- a government agency that, like many others, likely views law enforcement officers as "good guys" and defers to their judgment.

But what happens where you're pulled over? The first thing an officer does is ask for license and registration and then takes both items back to his/her vehicle. How many people feel comfortable with allowing an officer to take and maintain control of their cellphone for an indefinite period of time?

Sure, we have a Supreme Court decision that states warrants must be obtained before cellphones can be searched, but how much of a deterrent is that? Let's say the officer thinks you might be some sort of drug runner. Well, now he has both your cellphone and "exigent circumstances." Even if the eventual search turns up nothing, he's still had a chance to look through your cellphone and, quite possibly, your vehicle, all without a warrant. Iowa's law enforcement officers already take advantage of the state's asset forfeiture laws. There's no reason to believe they won't take advantage of additional opportunities to root around in the contents of someone's cellphone. All it takes is a routine traffic stop.

That's only one problematic area. What about officers who like to send explicit or suggestive photos to their to their cop buddies? Are we really supposed to believe that this sort of behavior is limited to just a couple of officers in California? Human nature is universal and handing over the access and opportunity just makes it that much easier for those who would take advantage of both to do so.

Sure, the Iowa DOT app requires a pin to unlock, but your whole phone is an open book once you've unlocked it to access the drivers license app. Trombino says it's "highly secure," and maybe the app itself is, but it doesn't keep cops and TSA officers out of the rest of the contents of your smartphone. This app may be a technological step forward, taking advantage of something people carry more often than they do purses or wallets, but it's also an easy way for law enforcement and security personnel to achieve access to an unlocked phone without having to bother with Constitutional niceties.

If the app could be accessed without unlocking the entire phone, it would be a bit more useful. But there's really no way to make an app that ignores the underlying system that enables it to function -- at least not one put together by a state agency. And since you can't separate the two, it just makes more sense to carry around a slab of plastic until someone comes up with a better idea.

Filed Under: drivers license, iowa, phones, police, privacy, security

Iowan 'Drug Interdiction' Officers Legally Steal $100K From Poker Players Passing Through Their State

from the two-'drug-traffickers'-with-nothing-but-a-grinder-between-them dept

Asset forfeiture is back in the news again. No sooner had it been recommended that Canadian visitors to the US do everything they can to avoid interactions with law enforcement officers (i.e, drive super-carefully, don't consent to searches, avoid long conversations with officers by continually asking if you're free to go, etc.) in order to prevent any large amounts of cash being seized, then an incident occurs that throws all that semi-useful advice out the window.

The Des Moines Register highlights an Iowa forfeiture case, the subject of a federal lawsuit filed this week, in which state troopers took $100,000 in winnings from two California poker players traveling through the state on their way back from a World Series of Poker event in Joliet, Illinois.

Driving carefully and obeying traffic laws? Mostly worthless.

More than 10 minutes after he began following the car, [State Trooper Justin] Simmons initiated a traffic stop, claiming Newmerzhycky failed to signal while passing a black SUV.

However, attorneys have now argued that a dash camera video taken from Simmons' patrol cruiser — which was several car lengths behind the Altima — shows Newmerzhycky using his turn signal, contrary to the troopers' report.

Don't just take the attorneys' word for it. Go view the video yourself at the Des Moines Register website (where it will "conveniently" AUTOPLAY). Around the 30-second mark, you can clearly see the left-hand turn signal being used.

Bad news is: the courts pretty much don't care whether or not any infraction actually occurred, as long as an officer claims it happened, as Reason's Jacob Sullum points out:

In the absence of such contrary evidence, cops are free to invent minor traffic infractions to justify a stop they want to conduct for other reasons. Although it does not condone such prevarication, the Supreme Court has said any valid legal reason makes a stop constitutional, even if it's a pretext for a more ambitious investigation.

In this case, there's "contradictory evidence," but all that really means is a person subjected to this is facing a long, expensive legal battle to reclaim his or her funds. Iowan "interdiction teams" have made the most of this loophole -- as well as a civil asset forfeiture program that has netted local law enforcement nearly $7 million over the last three years -- targeting non-Iowan drivers 86% of the time.

As for avoiding long conversations with law enforcement by pressing the "am I free to go?" question… that didn't exactly work either.

The two gamblers nearly got away with leaving with their legally-obtained funds, but the trooper extended the detainment by asking for favors. All he wanted to do was "ask a couple of questions." And bring in a drug dog. John Newmer­zhycky (who I'll be referring to by his first name should the need arise) asks if he can decline this extra attention. The officer agrees he can, but then asserts that John seems too "nervous." Who wouldn't be, knowing that law enforcement officers aren't generally inclined to believe the cash stashed in your rented vehicle was legally obtained?

In fact, who could possibly avoid triggering any of these signs of suspicion, which are presented in drug interdiction training as indicators of guilt? From the federal lawsuit [pdf link]:

Defendant Desert Snow and Joe David’s training taught Trooper Simmons that completely innocent behaviors were indicators of criminal activity, including:

Dark window tinting
Air fresheners or their smell
Trash littering a vehicle
An inconsistent or unlikely travel story
A vehicle on a long trip that is clean or lacks baggage
A profusion of energy drinks
A driver who is too talkative, or too quiet
Signs of nervousness, such as sweating, swallowing or redness of face
Designer apparel or other clothing that seems inappropriate
Multiple cellphones

The list of contradictions is all the justification interdiction officers need to turn baseless traffic stops into full-blown search-and-seizures. Talk too much or too little while standing outside your too clean or too dirty vehicle and you too could be relieved of your cash, electronics -- even the vehicle itself.

Shortly thereafter, the drug dog arrived and John gave the officers permission to search the vehicle, performing the alert everyone expected to happen, albeit off-camera. (It would have been captured on camera had Officer Simmons not switched his off upon his arrival at the scene.) The officers opened the trunk and found the $100,000 in cash and the one thing it needed to justify taking it all: a grinder with bits of marijuana in it.

This minor paraphernalia charge was the only charge brought against the two men. Because John had previously denied the vehicle held "large amounts of cash" during the trooper's roadside fishing expedition, it was presumed that the grinder was simply a small part of a much larger drug operation.

And, to add the last little dig at the two men whose $100,000 they had seized, an interdiction agent called in a tip that resulted in police searching both men's residences in California. Marijuana was found in their homes, but it was for legal, medicinal purposes. Felony charges were briefly pursued but were dropped once the California prosecutors viewed the traffic stop video.

But these two didn't give up. They fought back, finally forcing the state to return $90,000 (apparently there's some sort of surcharge/skim that automatically comes out of "forfeited" funds), one-third of which went directly to reimbursing their lawyers for their efforts. Now, they're hoping to take a bit more back from the state via a lawsuit. John claims to have lost his home and his business due to the expenses and stress incurred as a result of this battle. The other plaintiff, William Davis, said the loss of funds prevented him from entering other tournaments -- something he does for a living. He was also kicked out of his apartment by his landlord, who presumed that a search by police officers was actually an indicator of criminal activity, which is (like anywhere) a violation of lease conditions.

In addition, the searches by Humboldt County (CA) officers triggered the freezing of both men's bank accounts. Despite having charges dropped by the local prosecutor and despite having the money returned to them by the state of Iowa, these accounts remain frozen to this day.

So, not only did Iowan law enforcement lift $100,000 from these men, they also effectively made them jobless and homeless. Civil asset forfeiture affects much more than your cash on hand. It can destroy your life. And all many officers need to start this ball rolling is a contradictory checklist and the presence of cash or drug paraphernalia. At that point, you may only be a suddenly luckless poker player just 'passing through,' but in the eyes of interdiction teams, you may as well be Pablo Escobar himself.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, forfeiture, iowa, poker, police, seizure

Lawmakers Issued License Plates That Make Them 'Invisible' To Traffic Cams And Parking Tickets

from the and-yet,-reps-complain-about-the-public's-cynicism dept

There are rules for the common people and rules for their "leaders," and only in rare cases do the same rules cover both. Chris Morran at the Consumerist points out how politicians (yet again) are being allowed to ignore the same laws that affect their constituents. Colorado legislators are immune from speeding tickets and parking tickets thanks to the special plates issued to lawmakers -- ones that aren't included in the DMV database.

According to CBS Denver, the info for these particular license plates is never entered into the DMV database, so when some state senator goes zooming by a speed camera, he or she won’t get a ticket, because the camera system looks up the license plate number through the DMV. Since no info comes up, no ticket is given.

This appears to be true for parking tickets as well. See, even though a parking enforcement officer might leave a ticket on the car, cities like Denver that rely on the DMV for addresses of vehicle owners come up empty when they try to collect on those tickets.

On the parking ticket side alone, there are $2,100 worth of unpaid tickets linked to these "invisible" plates. The Dept. of Public Works has decided it's "too costly" to pursue collection of those fines. Of course, now that this is public knowledge, a politician has "stepped up" to right the wrong.

One state lawmaker recently stated his intention to close this loophole through legislative action in the next session, by simply doing away with the plates altogether.

“[I]t’s absolutely unfair,” said state representative Chris Holbert. “We should be held accountable like any other citizen. We are elected to represent the people and there’s no reason for us to be treated differently.”

If only this sort of behavior were an aberration. Earlier this year, Iowa Governor Terry Branstad's speeding SUV was pursued by a highway patrol officer who decided (or was instructed) not to pull it over after realizing whose vehicle it was. Like in Colorado, certain public vehicles are issued plates that aren't listed with the Iowa DMV, which makes these vehicles automatically exempt from traffic cam tickets, parking violations and apparently, even speeding clocked by an on-duty state trooper. It should be noted that the trooper raising the complaint about the governor's speeding driver (another state trooper) was placed on leave after making this public.

After this small debacle, Governor Branstad too "stepped up" to rein in the injustice, except that his idea of "reining it in" falls far short of Colorado legislator Chris Holbert's plan. In Branstad's view, the problem isn't with the plates, per se. It's that there are too many of them.

Iowa Governor Terry Branstad is upset about the number of specialized license plates that have been given to state, local and federal agencies.

More than 3 thousand plates have been issued that exempt the vehicles from getting traffic camera tickets. Brandstad has ordered state transportation officials to cut the number of the special plates.

Over 350 agencies in Iowa have these plates at their disposal (over 3,000 issued so far), a ridiculous amount considering the plates were originally intended for undercover use by various arms of Iowa law enforcement. Branstad probably isn't looking to give up his ticket-dodging plate but presumably will be forcing several others to play by the same set of rules as the public -- that same public these public servants are supposed to be serving.

But that's nothing compared to the staggering level of abuse (ranking between 'Chris Brown' and 'Foster Home' on the Abuse Chart) taking place in our nation's capital. Back in 2008, a report by the US Committee on Transportation detailed the astounding number of violations racked up by government employees and officials.

Municipal, state and federal government agencies are among the biggest offenders when it comes to illegal parking and non-payment of parking citations. A report released last week by the US House Committee on Transportation documented 4000 cases last year where employees in federal vehicles skipped out on paying parking tickets worth $700,000 in Washington, DC and New York City. The total does not include unpaid tickets in foreign countries and other cities throughout the fifty states where 642,000 automobiles registered to the US government are in use.

"Over one-half of all workers in the southernmost section of Manhattan are government employees," the report explained. "Essentially, all of lower Manhattan is a free parking lot for government vehicles."

Federal workers were not alone in ignoring parking laws. City workers in Washington and New York also disregarded citations issued by fellow employees. DC government vehicles generated 329 unpaid tickets worth $33,360 while New York city and state vehicles skipped out on paying 2562 tickets worth $490,939.

The worst offender? The FBI, which the report found to be responsible for the largest number of delinquent parking tickets by a single agency. The FBI, properly chastened, examined the cases listed and, because it's such a shit-hot investigative agency, found itself "unable to come up any suspects who may have been responsible for illegally parking FBI vehicles on 218 occasions."

To the surprise of roughly no one, those responsible for enacting and enforcing laws are seldom as interested in following them. Apparently, performing the "business of government" is such a total sacrifice that illegal parking, speeding and other traffic violations should be waved off so that our nation's do-gooders are unimpeded in their good doings.

Filed Under: colorado, elected officials, iowa, law breaking, lawmakers, license plates, terry branstad

Can Handing Out 'Txting Kills' Thumb Bands Stop People From Texting While Driving?

from the beats-bad-laws dept

We've pointed out that some recent studies have suggested that laws that ban texting-while-driving may have actually made the roads more dangerous, because it hasn't stopped people from texting, but just caused them to further hide the activity by holding the phone down low -- forcing them to take their eyes off the road more. This isn't to say that we think texting while driving is a good idea -- it's not. But just because you pass a law trying to ban a really dumb idea, it doesn't mean it will have the desired effect, and the early evidence suggests that there are serious unintended consequences with these laws.

Instead of laws, I think that a combination of education and technology could be a lot more effective, and it appears that at least some law enforcement folks are trying to increase the educational aspect. Parker Mason points us to the news that police in Iowa have started issuing "Txting Kills" thumb bands (sort of like the Livestrong bracelets... but for your thumb) rather than tickets to those caught texting while driving (they're also just handing them out at schools). It's nice to see an educational component, rather than just strict punishment, but I'm not convinced that thumb bands alone will do the trick...

Filed Under: driving, education, iowa, texting

Law Enforcement In Iowa Recognizes Craigslist Is A Tool, Not A Problem

from the good-for-them dept

While officials in neighboring Illinois are suing Craigslist for prostitution, it appears that law enforcement officials in Iowa know better. Brent writes in to note that police in Iowa have been using Craigslist as a tool to help crack down on prostitution. Of course, that doesn't make for headlines nearly as big as just blaming Craigslist...

Filed Under: iowa, prostitution
Companies: craigslist

'Laboratories Of Democracy' At Work On E-voting

from the paper-ballots dept

Last summer, Congress debated legislation that would have required a voter-verified paper trail on all e-voting machines. I supported the legislation and co-authored an op-ed saying so. That legislation didn't pass, but Joe Hall points out that Iowa is the latest state to switch back to paper ballots in its election system. He points out that thirty states now have rules requiring a voter-verified paper trail, with another 8 states using voter-verified paper trails without a specific state law requiring that they do so. Iowa looks to be even better than some of these other states because it's moving to an almost entirely paper-based voting system. Voting machines will only be used to help voters (especially disabled voters) mark their ballots. This approach is ideal because it ensures that the paper trail won't become an afterthought, as it often does when the "paper trail" is a roll of cash register tape that no one ever looks at.

Thanks to the hard work of voting activists, it appears that state legislatures are doing the job at the state level that Congress couldn't get done last year. In some ways, this is actually a better way of doing things. Last year's debate in Congress was very helpful in raising the profile of the issue, but even most supporters of last year's legislation recognized that some states wouldn't be able to revamp their election processes in time for the 2008 elections. More importantly, if Congress screws up -- as it did when it pushed e-voting on the states with the 2002 Help America Vote Act -- it's much harder to recover than if an individual state screws up. With 50 state legislatures looking at these issues independently, states can try a variety of different approaches tailored to the needs of their individual election systems and adopt the ones that prove most successful. The momentum for verifiable elections continues to grow; hopefully the 12 states that are still conducting elections without a paper trail will get on board in time for the 2010 elections.

Filed Under: e-voting, iowa, states

Yak4Ever May Not Be Around 4Ever

from the regulatory-arbitrage dept

TechCrunch is reporting on the demise of Yak4Ever, a startup company that exploited a regulatory loophole to allow them to offer free international calls. The bill was being paid by large telephone companies like AT&T and Verizon, which were forced to pay exorbitant rates to connect the calls under the FCC's byzantine long distance regulations. Apparently, the Baby Bells got fed up and simply stopped paying the bills, and the FCC hasn't ruled on the issue quickly enough to keep Yak4Ever in business. We wrote about a similar company, called FreeConference.com, back in January. That one offered free conference calling services, again subsidized by exorbitant interconnection charges. In that case, we criticized AT&T for blocking the calls instead of appealing the fees to the FCC. But regardless of the legal details, it's awfully hard to have much sympathy for either Yak4Ever or FreeConference. It seems pretty clear that they're not creating new wealth; they're just taking advantage of poorly-thought-out FCC regulations to make a buck at the expense of other phone companies. This is one of the reasons regulators should leave interconnection rates to market forces whenever possible. If long-distance interconnection rates were determined in competitive markets the way transit agreements are negotiated between Internet carriers, this sort of regulatory arbitrage wouldn't be a problem. It's only when the FCC is setting rates by fiat that these kinds of opportunities crop up.

Filed Under: arbitrage, free conference calls, iowa, telcos, termination fees
Companies: yak4ever

Exploiting Telco Regulations For Free Calls And For Profit (Lots And Lots Of Profit)

from the so-easy,-it's-almost-criminal... dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about how suddenly a bunch of "free" calling services were popping up that all seemed to use phone numbers in Iowa. This included a service that would let you call an Iowa number and from there call anywhere in the world for free as well as a variety of "free conference calling" services. All of these systems were actually exploiting some legacy telco regulations, that were officially designed to help rural telcos get extra money to build out more rural service. Basically, the government allowed rural telcos to charge high termination fees to other telcos when calls from their lines terminated on one of the rural telco's lines. So, if you had AT&T and called your cousin in Iowa who had some small rural telco, AT&T would actually have to pay that telco some charge per minute, with the idea being that the telcos would use that money to invest in infrastructure. Of course, the infrastructure they invested in wasn't exactly building more lines to wire up others in the town, but in VoIP systems so they could reroute calls in to anywhere else, and then team up with various online sites to get as many calls as possible routed through those systems. Then they could just sit back and collect the millions of dollars rolling in from telcos. Broadband Reports points us to an article at the Wall Street Journal going into more details about how this happened -- and how the FCC is now scrambling a bit to see if there's a way they can stop it. In the meantime, the WSJ piece notes that while the telcos have been told by the FCC that they have to keep connecting these calls, they've simply stopped paying any of the termination fees as they await the results of the various lawsuits. Of course, all that's done for now is made the various free conference call services switch to other rural telcos in other states. Eventually, though, they'll run out of other states to go to (or the regulators will finally realize how their regulations are being exploited) and the little regulatory exploit will go away.

Filed Under: arbitrage, free conference calls, iowa, telcos, termination fees
Companies: at&t, fcc, freeconference.com, qwest, sprint, verizon