Memo to Iowa governments: You can't censor critics

A federal court has put Iowa’s governments on notice: officials cannot restrict free speech by suing or threatening to sue critics of public policies.

The city of Sibley (Osceola County) agreed to U.S. District Court Judge Leonard Strand’s permanent injunction to resolve a lawsuit the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa filed earlier this month on behalf of Josh Harms. He had created the website Should you move to Sibley, Iowa? to document the “absolutely terrible, wretched odors” from “The Blood Plant,” which produces animal feed additives. Harms also used the site to “call out the city on what I perceived to be a streak of inaction and ineffectiveness” in dealing with the problem.

In December 2017, city officials demanded that Harms take down his website within ten days “and not replace it with other derogatory material.” If he failed to comply, the letter warned, “your next notice will be in the form of a lawsuit.”

I thought it was brazen when my hometown of Windsor Heights removed yard signs criticizing city government and threatened to fine the property owners. After the ACLU of Iowa got involved on behalf of the affected residents, the city backed down before that conflict escalated to litigation.

Sibley took their censorship efforts several steps further than Windsor Heights. Their disregard for Harms’ constitutional rights was so blatant that it took less than a month to wrap up this lawsuit.

The permanent injunction issued on March 29 forbids any representatives of Sibley

from directing Harms not to speak with reporters, threatening to bring a lawsuit, or actually bringing a lawsuit against the Plaintiff Harms for speaking with reporters or publishing www.shouldyoumovetosibleyia.com in its previous form or in any future form, including www.sibleystinks.com or any other successor websites that criticize the City of Sibley or the Defendants in the conduct of City business.

According to an ACLU news release, enclosed in full below, the city also agreed to apologize to Harms, pay damages and attorneys’ fees, and train their staff on the First Amendment. Harms plans to update his website soon and “continue using my skills as a web developer to help improve the lives of everyone living here by calling attention to the problems that we face.” He encouraged supporters to donate to the ACLU of Iowa, because “If it weren’t for them I would have been lost.”

Rita Bettis, the civil rights group’s legal director in Iowa, said the case “sends a strong message to the City of Sibley and all Iowa government officials to respect the free speech rights of Iowans. […] The right of the people to freely and openly criticize their government is the very foundation of democracy. In America, the government cannot threaten legal action against someone for speaking out against it.”

ACLU of Iowa press release, March 29:

Des Moines, Iowa — Today the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa issued a permanent injunction ordering the City of Sibley to refrain from suing—or threatening to sue— a local man for protesting the town’s response to strong smells created by a pork blood processing plant in town.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Iowa earlier this month filed a lawsuit on behalf of Josh Harms, a resident of Sibley. That lawsuit sought to block city officials from making legal threats or taking other action to force Josh to remove or change a website he created. That web site at one point criticized city officials about a smell “like rancid dog food” from the ag processing plant. The city also instructed Josh not to talk to the media about the odor and even not to talk to local media about the city’s threats of litigation against him.

The ACLU successfully argued that those actions violated Harms’ right to free speech.

The permanent injunction, which the City of Sibley has agreed to, blocks the city from “directing Harms not to speak with reporters, threatening to bring a lawsuit, or actually bringing a lawsuit against the Plaintiff Harms for speaking with reporters or publishing www.shouldyoumovetosibleyia.com in its previous form or in any future form, including www.sibleystinks.com or any other successor websites that criticize the City of Sibley or the Defendants in the conduct of City business.”

As part of the injunction, the City of Sibley has agreed to do the following:
• Provide training on the First Amendment for city staff
• Issue a written apology to Josh
• Cover $20,475 in attorneys’ fees for the time that the ACLU and its cooperating attorney spent defending Harms’ speech rights
• Pay $6,500 in damages to Josh

Josh said, “I’m happy that the City of Sibley has recognized they were wrong to threaten me for the criticism I’ve written and published online. Personally disagreeing with something that’s been written is understandable, but threatening the writer with a lawsuit while representing the government is censorship. It violates the First Amendment and our freedom of speech.”

Josh also said, “With this injunction secured, I hope to continue using my skills as a web developer to improve the lives of everyone living in Sibley by calling attention to the problems we face. It should go without saying that sometimes calling attention to problems may not be great for the town government’s reputation. However, that doesn’t provide a basis to the town to try to block residents’ speech.”
Josh Harms was represented by ACLU of Iowa legal director Rita Bettis and cooperating attorney Glen Downey of the Des Moines law firm Downey and Mundy, PLLC.

ACLU of Iowa Legal director Rita Bettis said, “Today’s outcome sends a strong message to the City of Sibley and all Iowa government officials to respect the free speech rights of Iowans. Cases like Josh’s go to the core of the ACLU’s mission in protecting free speech, and we are grateful for his willingness to stand up for the First Amendment. The right of the people to freely and openly criticize their government is the very foundation of democracy. In America, the government cannot threaten legal action against someone for speaking out against it.”

“With today’s injunction, Josh can rest assured that he will be able to continue to revise his website and speak to local reporters regarding his local government without the fear of governmental retaliation.”

Cooperating Attorney Glen Downey said, “We are pleased that the injunction against the City of Sibley that was signed today by a federal judge shows that Josh’s hometown recognized that protecting the First Amendment rights of its citizens is not only the constitutional obligation of the City but is also the only just and fair thing under the circumstances. We hope that instead of threatened litigation, Josh and the City can now work together to improve life in Sibley for everyone.”

Josh’s website is “Should You Move to Sibley, Iowa? http://shouldyoumovetosibleyia.com/

About the Author(s)

desmoinesdem

  • I quickly found this on the Nwestiowa.com website, dated 2/26/18

    “IDP and Sibley have gone back and forth in Osceola County district and magistrate courts over the smells caused by the business since the city started issuing code violations in regard to environmental nuisances in July 2015. In addition to the multiple city citations, the smelly situation caused by the company has led to a plethora of protests from other Sibley business owners and residents.”

    There’s more, but that’s the general idea. Sibley’s attempt to silence Josh Harms was of course unconstitutional anyway. But the situation described above lowers the attempt to the level of “ludicrous.”

    • fun with words

      brazen: bold and without shame.
      blatant: (of bad behavior) done openly and unashamedly.
      ludicrous: so foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing; ridiculous.

      Well done, everyone! Bravo. PrairieFan nails it. Two scoops of ice cream for you!

      I miss William Safire’s “On Language” column. Emailed him once and asked, “So what’s up with the word ‘sanction’? The dang thing means just the opposite of itself!” No email reply, but a month or so later his column briefly explained contronyms. “Sanction is a Janus word,” he wrote.

      Words can still be fun even (or especially) when the politics we watch show a bit of bad form.

Comments