Image – Journalism & Law

Final Essay

The Connection of Journalism & Law

The biggest piece of advice I have for a new reporter entering into the field of journalism and law is to remember that everyone is human–people make mistakes, people need respect, and people deserve the whole truth. As a journalist, the public will rely on you to report truthful information in an unbiased way that respects all parties involved. Through the process of witnessing and reporting, you will make connections with law enforcement and community members that will greatly benefit your career as you continue to write stories.

Journalists will be able to experience the first access to police information on every incident that happens in the reporting area and also be the first to sit in on cases in the court. As Anelia once said in class, “Think about the privilege of being able to be there.” She was referring to being present during court cases and being able to take notes and soak up the process of courtroom. As a journalist, this is something that you should not take for granted; our country is one of the few that allow this type of privilege. I was aware that I could sit in on cases, but I had never thought that it would be such an interesting experience. Since turning eighteen, I have been called to jury duty twice in which I got off the hook for being in school, but now, I would gladly sit in on jury duty. The experience sitting in on a court case of my choosing opened my eyes to how the courtroom works, and how judges work to respect both the defendant and the plaintiff regardless of the type of case. The lawyers in the courtroom were especially helpful during my time there, and proved to me that they are willing to work with the media because they also want the correct information shared. Journalists will also have the privilege to work with law enforcement. Sometimes police officers will withhold information from the media because no solid information has risen yet, and journalists need to respect this. However, as a journalist, it is your job to keep trying to uncover the information–building trust with officers helps this process. Also, keep in mind that there is a big difference in getting out the correct information fast and false rather than the slow and true. Sometimes, jumping the gun to report a story without all of the needed information from an officer has bigger consequences than reporting the story after the fact. Patience is key when dealing with law officers.

Privacy is another topic that journalism and law share in common. As a law enforcer, police have the right to take away many of the aspects of a citizens privacy. This was shown to me in many real life experiences throughout the course. First, touring the Black Hawk County Jail, I knew that I was going to be on camera the entire time which made me feel a little uncomfortable. The fact that I was able to go into the inmates pod showed me that their privacy was invaded everyday in multiple ways, and that I shouldn’t be complaining. Sheriff Tony Thompson added during the tour that, “There is no place to hide.” The lack of privacy under the law was also shown through the ride along with the officer in which I saw multiple monitors that had the entire campus under surveillance. I knew that cameras were prevalent on campus, but not to the extent that I had imagined. In class discussions, the topic of privacy was also brought up. In my of the cases we studied, privacy and the First Amendment were an issue. In one particular case, Snyder vs. Phelps, the issue of First Amendment privacy was taken to the Supreme Court after Snyder thought that Phelps and his “cult” invaded the Snyder’s funeral for their son. Phelps ended up winning the case, and many journalists had to report the hearing regardless of their own opinion. As a new journalist, you have to understand and apply not only the First Amendment, but also every law that applies to the rights of a journalist. If you get into trouble reporting, there are ways to protect yourself especially in libel cases; journalists also have certain reporter privileges that can protect them and their published work. Understanding these rights will help you in the long run and gain the trust of law enforcement.

When trust is build with law enforcement, the more willing they are to share information with you; the first job of law enforcement is to protect the parties involved, not the media. Sometimes disclosing information to media puts inmates at a greater risk especially because most people form negative opinions about the people who get arrested. “Inmates are still someone’s brother, mom, friend and should be treated like anyone else,” said Sheriff Thompson during our tour. This quote will continue to stick with me. It is easy to make negative judgements about inmates because of the circumstances, but we have to understand that they do have a past and everyone makes mistakes. By no means am I saying that rapists should get special treatment, but until the law deems them guilty, judgement should not be passed. Sheriff Stacy Davis also discussed the topic of media involvement with me during our ride along. As a new journalist, you have to understand that some officer find it hard to talk to the media because their words can get twisted into something that makes the organization they work for look bad. One of Davis’s worst fears is being put on the media in a negative way for just doing her job; her job includes a lot of close calls and she still continues to get accused of being racist. She argued however that, “If you’re doing your job right, then there shouldn’t be a problem.” This statement applies to not only law enforcement but also journalists. Judges also come into contact with the media in the new form of extended media coverage in which reporters can actually record during trials. After listening to two judges come talk to our class, it was prevalent that judges are also worried that what they say will get twisted by the media. However, if journalists and judges work with the public benefit in mind, problems shouldn’t arise. “Our whole system is based on confidence and trust; it is a system of honesty, integrity, and respect,” stated Judge Newell during our discussion. The courtroom is a place for judgement to be done respectfully, so journalists need to take that respect into their stories. During the extra credit Iowa Supreme Court hearing, Justice Cady stated, “It is critically important for all of us to be informed.” Journalists too.

With all of the regulations journalists must follow, it is important to always ask yourself if what you are writing or covering is ethical. Difficult topics, such a rape, church scandals, and murders are all hard to write about, but the public needs to know what is happening. Always keep in mind that the process of finding the right information can take awhile. This process is shown through the movie Spotlight in which the lives of journalists are depicted in a truthful, realistic way based on a true story. The reporters in the movie were uncovering information about the church rape scandal that happened in the Boston area. This is a hard topic to cover in the first place, and the journalists had trouble uncovering the correct information to prove what actually happened. This goes to show that journalism isn’t all easy to uncover the truth, but always rewarding to get the right information out.

Towards the end of the course, I got a feel for how rewarding it is to be a journalist. From the Spotlight example, it was rewarding to finally get the truth out about the Catholic church scandals, and to show the public a different side. Journalists not only build up trust with law enforcement but also the public as well. Anelia described a time in her life in which someone she had known for awhile asked her to receive the flag of honor at his funeral. This example stuck with me because it shows how much he trusted her and her career. She was also still able to do her job with how emotional the service was for her, showing that rewarding experience can come from hard circumstances once again. Going along with this topic, Anelia challenged us with a simple question, “If you lived to be 100 years old, what would matter? Make sure your life is meaningful. To me, journalism is an adventure.” There is a lot more to life than always focusing on the bad. Finding the balance as a journalist to find the good in hard situations is takeaway from the class that I will also remember. New journalists need to remember that hard work will get them places, but the relationships made along the way will be more rewarding than focusing on the negatives.

Cake Opinion

Here are the notes I took from class:

Tonight’s topic of discussion is about “the cake”. Today in the United States Supreme Court, they reviewed the case about a baker refusing to make a cake for a same-sex couple. One of the main questions asked was whether or not the cake was (in a sense) a form of speech. Did the baker have the right to refuse? Should same-sex couples consider this discrimination and fight it? After reading the many articles about this, it is hard for me to come to a solid opinion. I believe that the First Amendment does protect the baker, but I also believe that the baker is personally discriminating against the couple just based on sexual orientation. I am completely against racial discrimination, but with the many sexual orientations in today’s society, it is important for us as a nation to decide the protections and rights of those people. Even at a university level, many students and faculty now put their pronouns on their business cards, name badges, emails, etc. It is so interesting how blown up this case has become; I hope that this case sets a path for other sexual orientation and First Amendment cases in the future.

Here is a list of articles I viewed:

After taking time outside of class to ponder the case, I have decided that I would have ruled the cake baker guilty of discrimination. Yes, it is his shop and some would say that this violates his First Amendment right, but that right shouldn’t go as far as denying customers a service because of their sexual orientation. If the Supreme Court allows the baker to deny services, who is to say that more and more business owners wouldn’t do the same? In this case, it was same-sex couples being discriminated, but it could go way beyond that in the world we live in today (e.g.- race and religion). People haven’t been standing up against this discrimination just because of a cake, but rather the idea of simple service not being given to them because of who they marry. To me, this seems crazy. In my opinion, the baker can bake a cake for the couple without believing in what they practice and do. I see no harm to the baker in this case other than that it goes against his religion. I am also religious, but would never discriminate against someone’s sexual orientation just because of what I believe. Now, if the couple was violent or completely out of line, the defense of the baker would be different.

Supreme Court Profile- Elena Kagan, Associate Justice

Elena Kagan has certainly earned a name for herself in the academic and government world within the United States. Her hard work and exceptional background led her to her position as Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court even without any prior judicial experience (“Elena Kagan”). Kagan is the only justice in which no prior experience of judicial hearings did not hinder her being appointed by a president. This being said, Elena has worked many jobs that have given her the needed experience to be a justice.

Born on April 28th, 1960 in New York, Elena was brought up in a Jewish home in which her parents inspired her to go into the judicial field; her father was a long-time partner of a law firm and her mother was a teacher. Knowing she wanted to continue her education, Kagan attended an all-girls high school in which she learned many valuable lessons and the power of being a women. “”It was a very cool thing to be a smart girl, as opposed to some other, different kind,” she says. “And I think that made a great deal of difference to me growing up and in my life afterward.”(qtd.in “Elena Kagan” via Biography)”. After high school, she went to Princeton University where she studied history and graduated with a bachelors degree and honors which allowed her to obtain her masters in philosophy from Worcester College in England. In 1983, Kagan moved back to the states to become the supervising editor of the Harvard Law Review.

After her graduation from Harvard, Kagan decided it was time to move into politics. She had two clerk jobs-one for Judge Abner Mikva of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the other for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the United States Supreme Court. During 1988, she also worked for the presidential campaign but her candidate lost his bid (“Elena Kagan”). Shortly after, she worked as an associate in a Washington D.C. law firm just has her father had in New York.

Kagan worked in the firm for three years before deciding to return back to education, this time as a professor. Her first teaching job was at the University of Chicago Law School, and after only 4 years there, she left to work with President Bill Clinton. She was first given the role of associate counsel, but Clinton later promoted her twice. Her first promotion was to the position of Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and the second, to the role of Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council. As director of the Domestic Policy Council, Kagan coordinated domestic policy efforts that were consistent with the President’s goals (“Domestic Policy Council”). Clinton also nominated Kagan to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals in the D.C. Circuit, but the nomination was turned down by the Senate.

In 1999, Kagan decided that she wanted to again higher her education especially after being turned down from the nomination. She starting as a visiting professor at Harvard, but just two years later had her own title of professor at Harvard. After another two short years, Kagan had the title of Dean of Harvard in 2003. “During her five years as the dean of Harvard Law, Kagan made big changes at the institution, including faculty expansion, curriculum changes and the development of new campus facilities” (qtd.in “Elena Kagan” via Biography).

Another big change happened for Kagan in 2008 after President Barrack Obama, also a Harvard alum, took office; he selected her as the new solicitor general of the United States. This was quite the honor because she was the first female to ever be selected for the job. The main role of the solicitor general is to decide which cases against the United States should be under review of the Supreme Court rather than lower level courts (“About the Office”).

With her new role, Kagan earned plenty more respect, and after two month, President Obama nominated her for the new Supreme Court Justice position after another justice retired. After approval from the Senate, she took her seat on the Supreme Court on August 7, 2010. She was the fourth women to take a seat, and now, three women currently sit on the Supreme Court. This is an accomplishment because three women have never served on the Court at the same time before. When she was given her position, she was also the youngest person to be appointed to the court at the age of fifty.

Since taking her seat, Kagan has had the opportunity to write eleven opinions and four dissents and to side with the majority numerous times (“Writing by Justice Kagan”). Examples of cases she has sat in are sex-same marriage, Obamacare, and violent videogames. However, some of the hardest cases she has encountered include the First Amendment and whether or not the government has power to intervene. In 1996, Kagan wrote an article over the First Amendment that continues to both help and hinder her decisions now (Liptak). With the changes in technology since 1996, her article cannot prove First Amendment protections over internet mediums. One dissent from Kagan that includes both the First and Fourth Amendment was the case of Utah vs. Edward Joseph Strieff Jr. In her dissent Kagan wrote, “From here on, he sees potential advantage in stopping individuals without reasonable suspicion—exactly the temptation the exclusionary rule is supposed to remove. Because the majority thus places Fourth Amendment protections at risk, I respectfully dissent” (qtd. in Utah vs. Strieff). This shows her strong belief in the protection of civilian rights. When asked about the courts briefing process, Kagan stated that the only change she would make is the clarity (Journal). She explained that most of the cases brought to the Supreme Court are highly complex and it is sometimes hard to be clear in the briefings and opinions what the justices really mean.

As I was researching, I truly got a deeper understanding of what it takes to be a member of the Supreme Court. These justices are extremely intelligent, and have to do their best to keep their own opinions out of case for the benefit of the entire country. I found a quotes by Kagan that I especially loved, “I have no regrets. I don’t believe in looking back. What am I proudest of? Working really hard and achieving as much as I could” (qtd. in Swalin). As a female, this quote is powerful and inspiring, showing all of us that if we work hard we can do anything we want.

Works Cited

“About the Office.” The United States Department of Justice, 27 Oct. 2014, http://www.justice.gov/osg/about-office-1.

“Current Members.” Home – Supreme Court of the United States, USA Gov. , 2017, http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx.

“Domestic Policy Council.” National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/dpc.

“Elena Kagan.” Biography.com, A&E Networks Television, 6 May 2016, http://www.biography.com/people/elena-kagan-560228.

“Elena Kagan.” Oyez, 28 Nov. 2017, http://www.oyez.org/justices/elena_kagan.

Journal, ABA. “Full Transcript of Bryan A. Garner’s Interview with Elena Kagan.” ABA Journal, http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/full_transcript_of_bryan_a._garners_interview_with_elena_kagan/.

Liptak, Adam. “19 Years Later, Article by Kagan Echoes at the Supreme Court.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 5 Jan. 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/us/kagans-words-echo-at-the-supreme-court-19-years-later.html.

Swalin, Rachel. “11 Quotes From Women Supreme Court Justices | Reader’s Digest – Reader’s Digest.” Reader’s Digest, 15 Apr. 2016, http://www.rd.com/culture/female-supreme-court-justice-quotes/.

“Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. ___ (2016).” Justia Law, supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/579/14-1373/dissent5.html.

“Writing by Justice Kagan.” Supreme Court Collection: Opinions by Justice Kagan, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/kagan.dec.html.

Chapter Two- The First Amendment

For only being forty-five words long, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is powerful for not only journalists but also every citizens to understand and respect. With mass communication being what it is today, it is hard to pin-point what exactly the First Amendment is stating. Supreme Court Justices have interpreted the amendment in different ways, but can all agree that it is not an absolute ban on what the government can and cannot regulate in terms of press and speech. Unfortunately, the founders did not leave many records as to what they meant by freedom of speech and press, so justices and historians have to look at the historical time period in which the amendment was created and what was going on during that time in the first thirteen colonies. Some justices believe that the Constitution is a living document that is subject to change as society changes; this is especially important because the founders of the Constitution could not have known that we would be communicating through internet at the time the document was created. However, other justices think that this flexibility assumption essentially gives them the right to completely change the protections of the First Amendment as they see fit, no matter the circumstances.

In terms of court decisions, justices weigh constitutional interests on one side of a case against the competing side in the practice of ad hoc balancing. This balancing has courts make decisions based on specific facts under review of the case rather than on the basis of more generalized principles. Decisions of the court are also based on what category of speech or press the case is referring too. As stated in the text, “Simply put, the Court has decided that some types of speech deserve a lot of protection; some, less; others, none at all.” Political speech, for example, is fully protected under the First Amendment, but child pornography has absolutely no protection under the amendment. When a case involves a loose category of speech, such as fighting words, the court uses categorical balance to determine an outcome. This balance looks beyond the speech itself to consider the harm the speech caused and the circumstances of the speech method to reach a punishment.

The Supreme Court frequently identifies six core values of speech freedom that also help them make decisions within the courtroom.

Individual Liberty- freedom of speech is a basic human right.
Self-Government- freedom of speech gives citizens the right to form and discuss opinions relating to political personal and policies. This is a structure of our democracy, and was not allowed until the Sedition Act expired during the eighteenth century. The United States Supreme Court never reviewed the Act as it was expiring, and today’s justices believe that the court decided that the Act was in fact unconstitutional.
Limited Government Power- freedom of speech serves as almost a check and balance system of the government as a whole, limiting the power the government has.
Attainment of Truth- freedom of speech increases knowledge and discovery of truth by promoting open public discussion to expand understanding.
Safety Valve- freedom of speech allows citizens to express their disagreements and problems before turning to violence. Free speech is a way to “let off steam.”
Its Own End- as stated in the text, “Free speech, like clean air, or beauty, or justice, is an end in and of itself, a valuable good and a cherished right.”

As mass communication continues to change, so will the decisions of the Supreme Court in relation to the freedom of speech and press. As journalists, it is our job to not only respect the First Amendment, but also use it to our advantage when reporting needed information, even if that information will cause a public uprising. Journalists should strive to tell the truth in all situations.

Supreme Court- Turning an Opinion into a News Story

The Lengths of the First Amendment

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT- The First Amendment guarantees citizens rights to free speech in which everyone is allowed to voice their own opinion and form their own ideas. However, is there ever a time when the right of free speech is taken too far? This is the question that the justices of United States Supreme Court had to asked themselves in the case of Snyder vs. Phelps. Albert Snyder sued Fred Phelps after Phelps and his followers picketed within distance of funeral procession of Snyder’s son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder. Lance Corporal Snyder was killed in Iraq serving our country, and Phelps picketed outside of the funeral with signs that read, “God Hates You”, “Thank God For Dead Soldiers”, “God Hates Fags”, etc. In a majority vote, it was decided that this case of picketing was legal under the rights of the First Amendment.

Background

Fred Phelps is the founder of the Westboro Baptist Church that believes that God punishes the United States for its tolerance on homosexuality especially within military branches. The church has picketed all across the United States outside of military bases, on public grounds, and at funerals of fallen military members. When Phelps became aware of the funeral for Matthew Snyder, it was no different; him and his followers traveled to Maryland with their signs to publicize their agenda within distance of the burial service. Albert Snyder sued the church for intentionally causing emotional stress on the Snyder family who was trying to put their son to rest peacefully. Snyder claimed that the picketing caused him a great deal of emotional unrest and that it turned a private matter into a publicity stunt. The District Court of Maryland used a jury for this case, and the jury found that Westboro was liable for the emotional stress because of the outrageous content of the signs. Phelps appealed the case because he thought that the First Amendment fully protected the rights of the church in this situation. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in which they would review case at their level. It was decided by a majority vote that the Westboro Baptist Church was protected under the First Amendment, but two justices wrote concurring and dissenting opinions.

The Majority Opinion

The majority vote was written by Chief Justice Roberts. “Whether the First Amendment prohibits holding Westboro liable for its speech in this case turns largely on whether that speech is of public or private concern, as determined by all the circumstances of the case,” Roberts addressed. The circumstances of the case came down to the content, form, and context of the speech that Westboro members used. The issue with the content of the speech was if it relates to the public on a broad scale or if the speech was specifically directed to Matthew Snyder. The court upheld that the signs used did not personally attacked Snyder saying, “And even if a few of the signs-such as ‘”You’re Going to Hell”‘ and ‘”God Hates You”‘-were viewed as containing messages related Matthew Snyder or the Snyders specifically, that would not change the fact that the overall thrust and dominant theme of Westboro’s demonstration spoke to broader public issues.” The context of the speech was upheld to the fact that the church did their picketing in a public place, approved by local law enforcement, in which it was talking to society as a whole rather than the Snyder family. The court also made the claim that Phelps had no underlying reason to personally attack the Snyder family. “There was no pre-existing relationship or conflict between Westboro and Snyder that might suggest Westboro’s speech on public matters was intended to mask an attack on Snyder over a private matter,” stated Roberts. Snyder argued that the form of the speech was completely out of line and done in way that caused extreme hurt that even a jury could see. However, the church did their picketing on public grounds far enough away from the funeral and did not shout profanities or partake in physical violence. As a final statement, Roberts concluded, “What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment, and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that picketing was outrageous.” Snyder failed to show the court how much emotional stress the picketing caused him and also testified that he only saw the picketing on the news after the burial, so the church won the appeal. Phelps provided sufficient evidence that they did not intentionally make their protest about Snyder, and the court agreed that the picketing was geared towards the public as a whole. In regards to the First Amendment, Roberts explained, “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and-as it did here-inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course-to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

The Concurring Opinion

Written by Supreme Court Justice Breyer, he agreed with the majority vote, but thought that the court should not stop at the matter of public concern. “While I agree with the Court’s conclusion that the picketing addressed matters of public concern, I do not believe that our First Amendment analysis can stop at that point.” The picketing was done under public concern, but Breyer’s concurring opinion wondered if the court should have taken state laws of picketing into consideration. “As I understand the Court’s opinion, it does not hold or imply that the State is always powerless to provide private individuals with necessary protection.” After the review of this case, picketing means should be looked at from state legislatures. Harming individuals is an offense that the justice system takes seriously, but the First Amendment might get in the way of similar cases if nothing is done for the protection of the victim in verbal instances.

The Dissenting Opinion

Justice Alito wrote the dissenting opinion in which he described that the discussion of public issues can be expressed without harming the lives of innocent people for no good reason; Alito does not believe the First Amendment protects the cruel speech that the Westboro Church used within distance of the funeral. “It [Firs Amendment] does not follow however, that they may intentionally inflict severe emotional injury on private persons at the time of intense emotional sensitivity by launching vicious verbal attacks that make no contribution to public debate.” Alito defended his position by first recognizing that the church could have chosen to protest at any other public location, but chose to have this picket outside of the funeral for publicity reasons. He addressed that the church even issues press releases before the pickets to ensure that they “attract public attention.” The church has threatened pickets in the past in exchange for publicity which shows that the church members are willing to do anything for attention. “Similarly, in 2006, the church got air time on a talk radio show in exchange for canceling its threated protest at the funeral of five Amish girls killed by a crazed gunman,” Alito used as an example. Because the pickets in this case were done outside of the funeral, Alito also explained that any bystander would conclude that the signs were addressed to the deceased. “Since respondents chose to stage their protest at Matthew Snyder’s funeral and not at any of the other countless available venues, a reasonable person would have assumed that there was a connection between the messages on the placards and the deceased.” Some of the signs read, “Fag Troops” which would imply to the bystander that the deceased was homosexual; that assumption is false. Alito also disagreed with the majority on the pickets having First Amendment protection on the basis of public grounds. He made this claim relating to physical assaults. “A physical assault may occur without trespassing; it is no defense that the perpetrator had ‘”the right to where [he was].'” And the same should be true with respect to unprotected speech.” However, physical assault is much easier to claim in court than verbal assault. States first need to decide in their jurisdiction what is defined as “severe emotional distress” caused by verbal assault before courts can rule a party liable. Alito ended his opinion like Roberts did addressing the First Amendment. “In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to all the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner.”

Now What

Albert Snyder and his family will continue to remember the man Matthew was and his dedication to his country, but will never forget the horrible things that Westboro protested only 300 feet from the burial site. As for Phelps, him and his followers have continued their protests and pickets all while being under the protection of the First Amendment. This case is a reminder to citizens that we live in a country that accepts multiple forms of free speech. That freedom is a big responsibility that citizens should not take for granted or abuse.

Helen Haire Presentation Reflection

Helen Haire is the Chief of Police and Director of Public Safety for the University of Northern Iowa. Last week she was able to talk to our class and discuss her responsibilities especially related to the Jeanne Clery Act that was passed by Congress in 1990. The act goes into depth what university campus police departments must report and later issue in university crime statistics. I found it very interesting how many ruled needed to be followed by officers under this act, and that the act can vary from the Iowa Code of Law. Helen even told the class that the information shared was a very brief overview of the act, and I was in awe of all the information shared in such a short amount of time.

The first aspect of the act that Helen explained was the geography. “If you look at the foot print campus, its the streets that run through campus but are owned by the city,” Helen explained. The act can get as picky as what sidewalks are and are not covered. The four categories that the act lists under coverage include-on campus, residential housing, public property, and non-campus. Non-campus would include fraternity and sorority houses since they are university mandated. Another aspect of geography is the fact that the Helen has to monitor crime reporting’s from other countries. Her example in class involved the university band taking a trip to Europe; it is her responsibility to contact the local police department and ask if any crimes were reported during the band’s stay. This can get tricky however because the police departments in other countries are not required to give out information since they are not tied to United States laws.

Helen then went into explaining how the Clery Act defines certain crimes that usually very from how the Iowa Code of Law would define them. “You look at this list and you’re gonna tell me that you have a good idea of what they mean, but I’m gonna tell you, you don’t,” Helen stated as she showed us a list of the acts major offenses. The list of offenses including-murder, rape, arson, burglary, robbery, assault-are all compiled statistically by the department. I found the differences between the acts definitions of offenses and the Iowa Code of Law astounding. “Under state criminal code, there is such a thing as burglary of a vehicle, but Clery does not define a vehicle as an enclosed area for a burglary,” was one of the examples Helen made in regards to the differences in definitions.

Next, Helen discussed dating violence and stalking: both of which are difficult to define and score in a report. Dating violence has to be dealt with based on if one party states that the two are a couple even if the other denies it. “It really pisses me off when people come in when some of it is so junior high,” Helen explained. She has to score and report even the most minor incident that students report which gets time consuming and useless. “If somebody ever says leave them alone, leave them alone.”

At the end of the discussion, Helen informed us that all universities have to release an Annual Security Report by October 1st with no exceptions. The report is public and often helps parents/students decide which college is the safest to attend. As an institution, UNI strives to provide a safe environment for students, but students also have to do their part in making sure that the campus remains safe. The UNI Police Department is here to help us students no matter the circumstances.

Extra Credit- Iowa Supreme Court in Cedar Falls

Oral Argument- The Right to Know of All Charges

CEDAR FALLS, IOWA–Citizens of Cedar Falls and the surrounding area were given the opportunity to observe an oral argument of the Iowa Supreme Court. This particular argument looked at the State of Iowa vs. Jason Gene Weitzel after Weitzel appealed the decision of court in his previous domestic abuse case for not properly informing him of charges he was taking on after pleading guilty. Weitzel is represented by attorney, David Kuehner, and the attorney for the State of Iowa is Thomas Bakke. All Iowa Supreme Court Justices were present for the argument.

After a local female attorney addressed the audience and reminded us of the prohibited use of cell phones, the justices were brought on stage by the bailiff. Chief Justice Cady welcomed the audience and proceeded to ask Bakke to take his position at the podium. Again, Bakke represents the State of Iowa in this case, so he is defending the court in which the failure to give all the information of the charges should not be proven guilty or remanded back to the district court. Justice Wiggins was the first to interrupt Bakke’s argument. “You want substantial compliance without telling them [defendants] anything,” Wiggins stated. Bakke defends his argument by telling the judges that substantial compliance should not dictate whether or not a defendant pleas guilty (or innocent). The justices try to understand where substantial compliance would be significant, and Bakke replies, “I don’t want to categorize the amount of money insignificant.” This raises the problem of whether or not each case with substantial compliance needs to be looked at individually or if one law can apply to all cases. Based on Bakke’s argument, Cady stated, “We would have to apply this to every case.”

Bakke leaves the podium, and David Kuehner addresses the justices. At the beginning of his argument, Kuehner states, “It is not about the numbers but the fairness of the trial…Not whether or not it followed the plea charge, but the rules of the court.” His main argument being the fairness of the courts that failed to provide his client with all the charges. The justices argued if a 35% percent surcharge was a big deal compared to other consequences (jail time) and that the defendant usually doesn’t know of restitution charges at the time of a plea, so why would they need to know of a insignificant surcharge. Cady questioned, “What’s wrong with the standard to forget a ten dollar surcharge to go all the way back to trail?” Kuehner answered, “If you have A and B, why would you think C was hanging out there.” He really stressed the idea that his defendant lacked all the information before making his plea.

Bakke then takes the podium again after reviewing what the justices questioned. The justices again went back and forth with Bakke about whether or not missed surcharges needed to be looked at case by case and asks how judges would define a missed charge. Wiggins adds, “sort of like the Supreme Court not defining pornography but knowing what it is when they see it.” Justice Mansfield posed the last question that left Bakke a little confused. “What if a judge miscalculated a charge by 35%, would that be the same thing as forgetting a surcharge?” When Bakke failed to answer the directly, the justices called the arguments to a close.

Cady addressed the audience as part of his closing. “It is critically important for all of to be informed.” With how easily misunderstanding and criticism can be spread now-a-days, it is important for all citizens to understand their rights to the truth. Public oral arguments create that opportunity. He thanked everyone for listening and told the crowd to wait for around three months for a written opinion to be finished regarding the case. The justices then proceeded to the reception where the crowd could ask questions that did not regard this case since it is still under proceedings.

Chapter Thirteen- Advertising

Advertising plays a huge role in today’s society with every business competing to get their message out to the public. Journalists and advertisers believe that advertising should be protected under the First Amendment, but the Supreme Court first denied this because advertising does not adhere to the core of free speech values but rather to the enhancement of a business through increased profits. Courts rule this to be commercial speech because of the paid aspect. Since this initial court ruling, commercial speech has moved under the protection of the First Amendment (in some instances), but it does not enjoy the same protection as political speech does.

The Supreme has elaborated on when commercial speech does in fact deserve First Amendment protection by creating a set test–Central Hudson. The test was created after the Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation sued the Public Service Commission of New York because the state of New York refused to let utility companies advertise during a time of an energy crisis. Central Hudson said that this violates their rights of free speech, and using the test, the Court deemed the ban of advertising in this situation unconstitutional. The test is composed of these four elements according to the text:

Government may ban false and deceptive advertising and ads that promote illegal products or services

Once this standard is met, the ad is only constitutionally protected if:

2. Government establishes a substantial state interest in regulation

3. The regulation directly advances that interest

4. Regulation demonstrates a “reasonable fit” to state interest

With these regulations in place, advertising materials are often ruled to be constitutional under the First Amendment. However, advertising for controversial products–alcohol, cigarettes, etc.–tests the limits of these regulations. Agencies have been put in place to regulate how much a company can promote their controversial product especially in terms of protecting children. For example, the Camel tobacco company used a cartoon character of a camel to promote their products, and many citizens that the ads were directly marketed towards children. The Food and Drug Administration act sued and the Court ruled that the FDA did in fact authority here. As a result, all ads within the tobacco industry were banned from using cartoon characters and promoting on billboard/transit spaces so children were less likely to come into contact with future tobacco ads. On the other hand, alcohol companies have been granted the right to include the percent of alcohol in a specific drink and have ads within college newspapers because a ban on these would violate the First Amendment.

Another problem with advertising is the fact that some businesses will promote false or deceptive products across all advertisement platforms. As a result, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was put in place to protect consumers from such ads by ensuring that advertisers provide accurate information about their products. The FTC learns about these advertising problems mainly through consumer complaints or negative public debate. Most ads participate in “puffery” rather than absolute deception. Puffery is the exaggeration of a product in which a reasonable citizen would never believe the information.

The FTC works closely with advertisers to avoid problems before they get out of control by preventative and corrective measures. Preventative measures include-opinion letters, advisory opinions, and industry guides. An opinion letter is least formal action in which the FTC provides general techniques of effective, ethical advertising. The advisory opinion goes one step further and suggestions that the business adhere to the opinion given before things get extreme (taken to court). Industry guides provide an outline of how advertisers should follow policies within a category of a product or service. This can be taken one step further by issuing a trade regulation rule in which the FTC outlines an advertising statement for a particular trade. The last preventative measure is voluntary compliance. This is the last material provided to business by the FTC to advertisers before the FTC takes corrective measures to revise the businesses advertisements. Correct measures start with a consent order made by the FTC in which both parties sign an agreement that actions will be take to fix problematic advertising. Failure to sign will prompt the FTC to use a litigated order. AT this time, the court get involved with the problem and the business can be fined up to $10,000 per day for the false advertising. The FTC also has the right to order corrective advertising to require a business to issue a campaign that informs the publics of the misinformation. With the continual rise of internet purchasing, the rise of internet advertising is not far behind. The FTC also regulates the illegal advertising on the internet, and it working on a better way for consumers to block cookies while internet browsing.

Advertising regulations should not be taken lightly. It is very important for businesses and their advertisers to understand the regulations in place for their particular product or service. The worst thing for a business to do would be to not follow FTC regulations and then spend ungodly amounts of money to correct their problem.

Rape on Campus- Reflection

This case involves the suing of Rolling Stone by the University of Virginia Dean for the publishing of false and deceptive information regarding a rape on campus and the following statements made of the ethnical nature of UVA dealing with rape allegations on campus. An annotated story lays out the errors of what Rolling Stone published.

The annotated errors are sloppy reporting negligence’s. How could Rolling Stone published an article that included the name of the boy involved, “Drew”, when that character was fabricated? The journalist should have looked further into the case, finding evidence that the name was no one involved in the fraternity or work place that Jackie described. Also, there were sloppy errors in which the essence of the fraternity was altered. This included the function of the party and the brotherhood initiation. Jackie also provided altered evidence on different occasions. She would say that she was raped by different amount of boys, that her dress had blood on it, and that she escaped through doors that did not even exist on the house. Her friends that came to her aid the night of rape said that it was not as dramatic as Jackie described and that the portrayal of them in the article made them look heartless and unsupportive of Jackie in her time of need. The group of friends said that they were supportive and did not once talk about the reputation of the school or themselves when conversations of what to do next were brought up.

I think that Rolling Stone failed to do any extensive research in this case because they wanted a story that would support their assumptions that UVA did not handle rape on campus in a serious matter but rather “pushed it under the rug.” I am not assuming that Jackie made up the entire horrible crime that happened to her, but I also believe the flaws in her testimonies and the article itself.

It seemed the journalist did more research accusing UVA of not handling rape cases in a serious matter than telling this particular story truthfully. The fact that Rolling Stone released the derogatory edited photo of the Dean of Students shows that this article could have been written in direct misconduct. I believe that the photo was way out of line.

Rolling Stone should have made sure that all the information was correct before publishing this article. I believe that a separate article could have been with the accusations that UVA does not handle rape situations seriously on campus because there was sufficient evidence to support this that was not fully based on this particular case. Sexual assault is a serious matter, and all publications involving this crime should want to get the WHOLE truth before releasing any information to the public.

Police Ride-Along: University of Northern Iowa Police Department

One Officer, Many Responsibilities

CEDAR FALLS, IOWA–Stacy Davis, a senior officer for the University of Northern Iowa Police Department, doesn’t just patrol around in her squad car for her whole shift, as one naïve student would think. She also checks calls, makes sure she knows of every university event happening during her shift, and teaches a self defense class. I rode with her at the beginning of her shift during parents weekend at UNI, but unfortunately (for my experience), nothing too exciting happened. Because of this, I wasn’t able to observe as much as I would have liked, but I did essentially get to have an hour long, personal interview with an officer.

My ride started at 3 p.m. on Saturday afternoon as Davis was just starting her shift. I was able to spend a little more time in the office and get a feel for how the department is ran. Davis gave me a small tour of the offices in which I saw the records office, holding cell, and the dispatch room. The records office is the first place that an offender is brought into after an arrest; an officer proceeds to file paper work in here and breathalyze the offender if necessary. Next, I was shown the only holding cell in the department which looked pretty similar to holding cells at the Black Hawk County Jail. The cell had a camera in it, a small toilet, and a concrete bench. Nothing fancy. I also got to the see inside dispatch room. This was especially intriguing because it had multiple monitors in which the entire university campus was under twenty-four seven surveillance. Obviously, I know that UNI uses cameras for student safety, but actually seeing those cameras in place put a whole new perspective on my knowledge. I was even informed that I was on camera before entering the building when I had to use the call box to get into the building. This just proves the multiple discussions in class that almost all privacy is lost when dealing with law enforcement. Davis also said that the officers were once able to stop a car burglary by using the monitors in the dispatch room. The rest of the office was pretty quiet, as many of the other officers were stationed at the dome for dome safety and tailgating patrol.

After the short tour, Davis checked calls from the shift before hers to see if anything needed to be checked during her shift or if anything significant had happened earlier that day. She also looked through a thick binder in which it listed all the events going on during campus that night and which buildings needed to be locked and/or unlocked during her shift. When she was ready to go out to the car, she took with her a large duffel bag that looked like it had emergency supplies in it. Once in the car, the first thing I noticed was the stack of parking tickets in the door. I see many students complaining of getting a parking ticket, so I found it funny that the car had so many of them ready to go. I also noticed that a camera was positioned to monitor an any arrests being made, and an officer could also watch surveillance in the car. There were also multiple walkie-talkie’s and dispatch scanners, so Davis could hear information from not only the university officers but also the Cedar Falls officers.

Davis went onto describe the area that her department patrols and the boundaries to which the Cedar Falls police take over. It was surprising to me how little of a area the university police actually patrol. “The book store isn’t ours either,” said Davis when I asked her whether or not she has to patrol the Hill. The Hill is the responsibility of the Cedar Falls police, and Davis “won’t jump in unless its an emergency.” The university police do go out to the UNI practice soccer fields, but that is as far West as they will go, and they do not patrol over The Quarters.

When asked the most common offense dealt with by university police, Davis said that it would probably be public intoxication. “All these eighteen to nineteen year olds that are away from home for the first time just go crazy,” she explained. That rises into another problem underage college students have- fake id’s. However, Davis explained, “the last resort is to arrest them.” Arrests won’t be made unless the student is intentionally ruining property or hurting others. During the school year, the university police are also responsible for dorm safety. For example, if a student had a medical emergency in a dorm room, university police would need to be on the scene and ready to let ambulance workers into the correct building as efficiently as possible.

With law enforcement being brought up in the media quite frequently lately–and mostly for negative reasons–I thought I would ask Davis if she notices any negative effects within the university department. Her response caught me off guard. “We still get accused of being racist,” she said. I would think that working for a very diverse cultural university, that the these officers wouldn’t come across people who accused them of being racists. However, the entire university police department is white, so I can see where suspicions arise. Davis went on to explain that there is no one of color applying for positions, and with the negative stigma of becoming a police officer right now, positions aren’t necessarily open. With the negativity in the media, Davis said that she believes that police officers all over the nation are holding back on what they enforce. “If you’re doing your job right, then there shouldn’t be a problem,” she argued. One of her biggest fears is being put on social media in a negative way for her just doing her job. A part of just doing her job means that she has to be respectful to the offender no matter what the arrest is about; she has to be in control of her emotions at all times.

During my ride-along, I was also able to learn that Davis teaches a self defense class. This is one of the more rewarding aspects of her job because she isn’t looking to arrest someone but rather to teach others the importance of being able to protect yourself. She explained that she used to be way more shy than she is today, and she realized that she had a weakness that she wanted to improve on. She wanted to share this with other women in hopes to empower them as well. “When I teach women’s self defense, I see women feeling all badass.”

When I see a university police car drive past me, I immediately think that they are just lazily patrolling around not really do much of anything. I was definitely the naïve student before experiencing the ride-along. Davis and her team are doing what is in the best interest of students to keep them safe at all times, even if that means constantly patrolling. With so much crime happening all over the nation, it is relieving to know that the university has their own department to ensure the safety of students when Cedar Falls police are out on another job. “Don’t think that you are wasting our time if you call us. We’re here,” Davis said. No call is going to be left unanswered. This quote stuck with me, and I realized that I had transferred to a school that values the safety of its students as a top priority. With campus being so small, I appreciate the fact that the university police only have to focus on the safety of UNI faculty and students.