Iowa City Officials Prove They Aren’t Fascists By Arresting An Activist Twice For Calling Them Fascists

I'm not here to make broad statements about the state of Iowa, its various governing entities, or its court system, but it does seem that the state periodically struggles with recognizing long-held, pretty much unassailable rights. Lots of assailing in recent years, with only one instance working out for the government, and even that's unlikely to remain precedent for much longer because it's so obviously wrong.

The city of Newton, Iowa has been busy setting itself up for a First Amendment lawsuit over the last couple of months. City council meetings - you know, the events where residents are invited to show up, comment, and express their opinions - have provided the basis for the inevitable lawsuit, what with city officials and city cops combining forces to eject and (in two cases) arrest a local activist who aligns himself with the Antifa movement. The latest removal/arrest occurred during the last week of October, as reported by William Morris for the Des Moines Register.

The public comment period during Monday's meeting of the Newton City Council would be familiar from many Iowa government meetings: The speaker criticized the city's police department, calling for it to be defunded and for the city to support non-criminal responses to traffic violations, drug use and other social problems.

But then the speaker, activist and Newton resident Noah Petersen, got more specific with his criticism, and things got heated, as seen in a video posted to YouTube by a fellow activist.

I think the top two fascists in this town, Mayor Michael Hansen and the chief of police, need to be removed from power," said Petersen.

Arrested when he refused Hansen's order to leave the meeting, Petersen and supporters now are claiming the city violated his First Amendment rights.

Petersen and his supporters are correct. Adam Steinbaugh - who has provided an excellent Twitter thread covering the short sordid history of Newton's violation of rights - explained exactly what's wrong with this to the Des Moines Register reporter:

Adam Steinbaugh, an attorney with the national Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said Petersen's latest arrest is a pretty galling" example of citizens facing retaliation for exercising their constitutional right to free speech. Newton's policy, barring speakers from disparaging any individual, is clearly unconstitutional, he said.

People go to city council meetings to criticize government," said Steinbaugh, whose organization has offered assistance in Petersen's case. If the government expects that those people that are showing up to public comment periods are there to praise them, you probably haven't been in government very long."

The police chief and the mayor claim being called fascists" is defamatory." They're definitely wrong about that. That's just protected opinion. And Petersen's latest ejection - which was coupled with a disorderly conduct arrest - occurred after the mayor claimed the rules for city council meetings forbade derogatory remarks about any individual," something that clearly runs contrary to the First Amendment, which specifically protects criticism of the government.

And since the officials here have claimed being referred to as fascists" by a member of the public during a city council meeting is defamatory," why not quote directly from one of the most important Supreme Court First Amendment decisions (Times v. Sullivan), in which Justice Brennan wrote:

[W]e consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.

In contrast, the mayor and chief of police obviously prefer close-ended, inhibited debate guided down the bowling lane of public comment by just be nice" bumpers. When someone breaks the unconstitutional rules, the city has decided to compound the error by arresting the (not actually criminal) offender.

The activist's recent comments were compelled by pretty fascist-looking actions by Newton police officers, who falsely arrested a man for driving under the influence (an arrest that occurred after the driver passed a breathalyzer test). This false arrest was later defended by the Newton PD as just good police work in which the officers remained professional" during the bogus arrest despite being insulted" and disrespected" by the man they were falsely arresting.

Petersen - at another meeting - also highlighted the fact that one of the involved officers was subject to a no-contact order from a former girlfriend, something the city council chose to handle by suggesting bringing up publicly obtainable info was against the rules.

So, it's been two consecutive meetings and two arrests for Petersen - something authorized by the mayor and carried out by a PD which already has problematic track record. Hilariously, the first criminal complaint against the arrested commenter lists the victim of the alleged crime" as society." Nearly as hilariously, the second criminal complaint makes it clear Petersen was arrested for nothing more than being mean to city officials. (And by hilarious," I mean clear evidence of First Amendment retaliation" that's going to make any resulting lawsuit extremely difficult to defend against.)

On 10-24-2022 the defendant was speaking at the scheduled city council meeting. During his presentation the defendant began speaking negatively towards the Mayor of Newton and the Police Chief.

That's pretty much an admission Petersen was arrested for criticizing the government. From what's detailed here (and captured in multiple recordings from multiple council meetings), Petersen was not disrupting meetings. He was simply using his comment time to specifically criticize two town officials. And those officials decided they'd rather arrest the commenter than sit there and be criticized by a city resident. That's when the real disruption begins, and all of the hubbub is caused by a mayor who feels that if residents can't say anything nice, they shouldn't say anything should be arrested.

The city is violating the First Amendment on the regular. It released an (unsigned) statement claiming it has only subjected Petersen's speech to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions." But it's pretty clear the city's restrictions only engage when these officials don't like what residents are saying. The city's statement cites appellate precedent, but conveniently ignores the fact that this ruling says any time, place, and manner restrictions must be content-neutral. As Adam Steinbaugh points out in his comments to the Des Moines Register, Newton's restrictions don't appear to fit this description:

Newton's policy, by contrast, explicitly targets speech officials consider to be derogatory," Steinbaugh said.

If you say, as here, Mayor, you are a fascist or your police chief is a fascist,' that is prohibited. But if you say, Mayor, you and your chief are proud, upstanding American patriots,' that would be permitted under the policy, so it is inherently viewpoint-discriminatory," Steinbaugh said.

If there's any justice in this nation, this will end badly for the mayor and his chief of police. This is clearly punishment meant to silence a particularly persistent critic who still shows up to offer criticism despite being arrested twice for doing this. If these two don't like being called fascists, maybe they should stop acting like fascists, rather than prove the activist's point for him repeatedly.