DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970 | 1970-09-10 Daily Iowan Article: ""Injunction Against Protests Upheld""

Transcribe
Translate

University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970

1970-09-10 Daily Iowan Article: ""Injunction Against Protests Upheld""

Sept. 10, 1970 DI 

Injunction Against Protests Upheld

By KRISTELLE PETERSEN 
City- University Editor

A court ruling Wednesday - the first day of fall registration for classes - upheld portions of a permanent injunction against student disruptions sought by the City of Iowa City. 
Declaring that he was satisfied "that there is a reasonable probability of disruptive acts this fall on the University of Iowa campus and elsewhere in Iowa City which would menace the public rights and welfare," District Court Judge Harold Vietor upheld six of the ten injunction requests.
Vietor stressed that the injunction doe not violate anyone's constitutional right of freedom of speech and assembly 

THE RULING 
The ruling "does not deny to anyone, including the enjoined parties and all University students, the right to lawfully and peacefully hold rallies, demonstrate and picket. The right of peaceable assembly is a fundamental Constitutional right of all persons, which this Court has not abridged," Vietor stated. 
Defense attorneys had argued at the hearing for the presentation of evidence on the injunction that is 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."
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 actively if it conceivably 'hinders or interferes' with the University of Iowa or townspeople."
The hearings were held Aug, 5. and 6 in Johnson County District Court. 

" INACCURATE NEWS"

"Inaccurate news accounts and misleading statements by some individuals have caused serious misunderstandings concerning the scope of the temporary injunction and the means of enforcing it ... These misunderstandings have served to aggravate the overall situation," Vietor commented. 
Citing another court ruling. Vietor said, "The rights guaranteed to the defendants under the Federal Constitution were not a license for them to trample upon the rights of the public ... " 
The injunction enjoins 10 individuals "other persons in active concert or participation with them or any of them, and all other persons who aid, abet or assist them or any of them," from:
" 1) Purposefully and by overt act disrupting or obstructing any function, activity or event duly authorized by the State University of Iowa.
"2) Purposefully and by overt act obstructing any person's free and lawful use of or ingress or egress to or from any building, structure or facility, any portion thereof, in Iowa City, 
" 3) Purposefully and by overt act obstructing the free and lawful use by any person of any street, alley, highway, institutional road or sidewalk in Iowa City, 
"4) Taking possession of and occupying any building, structure or facility, or any portion thereof, in Iowa City, without proper permission or authority.
"5) Purposefully damaging, defacing or destroying any public or private property in Iowa City, or attempting by overt act to do so. 
"6) Purposefully inciting or attempting to incite any person to do any of the acts "enjoined"

NO ORGANIZATIONS ENJOINED

None of the four organizations named by the city in its injunction request were enjoined in Vietor's ruling Wednesday. He explained that " Students for a Democratic Society" (SDS) and " The Coalition" or " The Conspiracy" were not served notice of the court hearing and therefore were not even before the court. 
Vietor ruled that no evidence had been presented showing that the other two organizations were involved in any of the past demonstrations here or threatened to do any of the enjoined acts in the future. 
G. Sam Sloss and William G. White were also dismissed from the list of enjoined persons due to absence of evidence. 
Persons specifically enjoined are: Deborah S. Bayer, A3, Iowa City; Dan L. Cheeseman, Iowa City; Bruce A. Clark, Chicago; Albert M. Cloud, G, Iowa City; Bruce R. Johnson, Iowa City; John William Johnson, B4, Des Moines; Sherri L. Raders, A3, Iowa City; David M. Schein, A4, Los Gatos, calif., Roland M. Schembari, Washington D.C.
Stephen D. Ford, former assistant professor of business administration, was also named in the injunction. 

EXPLANATION

Explaining the phrase " all other persons similarly situated," Vietor said in an instance in which a person was brought before the court for alleged contempt for violating the injunction, just who is " all other persons similarly situated" would be a fact question that would have to be determined at that time. 
A person found guilty of contempt of court via violation of the injunction is subject to a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment in jail not more than six months or both. 
Vietor set 9:30 a.m. Dec. 9 as the date on which a hearing will be held in determine whether the injunction issued Wednesday will continue in effect. 
Commenting on the ruling. James Hayes, attorney for Cloud and Raders said " I was surprised at the outcome. I don't see that singling out people (named on the injunction) served any particular point 
" Why should 10 people be singled out when lots of people participated in the demonstrations throughout the spring? Why didn't the city get enough evidence to get an injunction against the organizations?"

LITTLE TO LOSE

Stating that the city had little to lose if the injunction had not been issued, he explained the serious implications for those persons named on it. 
" Now the kids will be required to come back to court on Dec. 9 (when the hearing whether to continue the injunction is scheduled)," he said. " That is unfair. Where will they come up with the money to defend themselves if they have to appear in court every six months?"
" And their names are talked about every time the ruling comes up because they are associated with it. It is not right that they should be continually singled out for acts committed long ago."

Saving...

Sept. 10, 1970 DI Injunction Against Protests Upheld By KRISTELLE PETERSEN City- University Editor A court ruling Wednesday - the first day of fall registration for classes - upheld portions of a permanent injunction against student disruptions sought by the City of Iowa City. Declaring that he was satisfied "that there is a reasonable probability of disruptive acts this fall on the University of Iowa campus and elsewhere in Iowa City which would menace the public rights and welfare," District Court Judge Harold Vietor upheld six of the ten injunction requests. Vietor stressed that the injunction doe not violate anyone's constitutional right of freedom of speech and assembly THE RULING The ruling "does not deny to anyone, including the enjoined parties and all University students, the right to lawfully and peacefully hold rallies, demonstrate and picket. The right of peaceable assembly is a fundamental Constitutional right of all persons, which this Court has not abridged," Vietor stated. Defense attorneys had argued at the hearing for the presentation of evidence on the injunction that is 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." 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 actively if it conceivably 'hinders or interferes' with the University of Iowa or townspeople." The hearings were held Aug, 5. and 6 in Johnson County District Court. " INACCURATE NEWS" "Inaccurate news accounts and misleading statements by some individuals have caused serious misunderstandings concerning the scope of the temporary injunction and the means of enforcing it ... These misunderstandings have served to aggravate the overall situation," Vietor commented. Citing another court ruling. Vietor said, "The rights guaranteed to the defendants under the Federal Constitution were not a license for them to trample upon the rights of the public ... " The injunction enjoins 10 individuals "other persons in active concert or participation with them or any of them, and all other persons who aid, abet or assist them or any of them," from: " 1) Purposefully and by overt act disrupting or obstructing any function, activity or event duly authorized by the State University of Iowa. "2) Purposefully and by overt act obstructing any person's free and lawful use of or ingress or egress to or from any building, structure or facility, any portion thereof, in Iowa City, " 3) Purposefully and by overt act obstructing the free and lawful use by any person of any street, alley, highway, institutional road or sidewalk in Iowa City, "4) Taking possession of and occupying any building, structure or facility, or any portion thereof, in Iowa City, without proper permission or authority. "5) Purposefully damaging, defacing or destroying any public or private property in Iowa City, or attempting by overt act to do so. "6) Purposefully inciting or attempting to incite any person to do any of the acts "enjoined" NO ORGANIZATIONS ENJOINED None of the four organizations named by the city in its injunction request were enjoined in Vietor's ruling Wednesday. He explained that " Students for a Democratic Society" (SDS) and " The Coalition" or " The Conspiracy" were not served notice of the court hearing and therefore were not even before the court. Vietor ruled that no evidence had been presented showing that the other two organizations were involved in any of the past demonstrations here or threatened to do any of the enjoined acts in the future. G. Sam Sloss and William G. White were also dismissed from the list of enjoined persons due to absence of evidence. Persons specifically enjoined are: Deborah S. Bayer, A3, Iowa City; Dan L. Cheeseman, Iowa City; Bruce A. Clark, Chicago; Albert M. Cloud, G, Iowa City; Bruce R. Johnson, Iowa City; John William Johnson, B4, Des Moines; Sherri L. Raders, A3, Iowa City; David M. Schein, A4, Los Gatos, calif., Roland M. Schembari, Washington D.C. Stephen D. Ford, former assistant professor of business administration, was also named in the injunction. EXPLANATION Explaining the phrase " all other persons similarly situated," Vietor said in an instance in which a person was brought before the court for alleged contempt for violating the injunction, just who is " all other persons similarly situated" would be a fact question that would have to be determined at that time. A person found guilty of contempt of court via violation of the injunction is subject to a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment in jail not more than six months or both. Vietor set 9:30 a.m. Dec. 9 as the date on which a hearing will be held in determine whether the injunction issued Wednesday will continue in effect. Commenting on the ruling. James Hayes, attorney for Cloud and Raders said " I was surprised at the outcome. I don't see that singling out people (named on the injunction) served any particular point " Why should 10 people be singled out when lots of people participated in the demonstrations throughout the spring? Why didn't the city get enough evidence to get an injunction against the organizations?" LITTLE TO LOSE Stating that the city had little to lose if the injunction had not been issued, he explained the serious implications for those persons named on it. " Now the kids will be required to come back to court on Dec. 9 (when the hearing whether to continue the injunction is scheduled)," he said. " That is unfair. Where will they come up with the money to defend themselves if they have to appear in court every six months?" " And their names are talked about every time the ruling comes up because they are associated with it. It is not right that they should be continually singled out for acts committed long ago."