Randy Evans, executive director of the Iowa Freedom of Information Council, has long advocated for openness and transparency within Iowa’s state and local governments.
A recent case in Decatur County, southern Iowa, is highlighting the need to protect citizens’ First Amendment rights to criticize their government without fear of retaliation or legal action.
A constitutional issue is brewing in Decatur County, where taxpayer dollars might be used to defend the county’s attempt to silence a local critic, Rita Audlehelm. Audlehelm, who regularly attends Board of Supervisors meetings in Leon, sent a letter to the editor of the Leon Journal-Reporter criticizing Supervisor Steve Fulkerson for his frequent absences from meetings.
In response, Decatur County Attorney Alan Wilson threatened to sue Audlehelm for defamation, a move that has sparked concern from the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit law firm that fights for constitutional rights.
The Institute for Justice expressed its worries in a letter to Wilson, arguing that such threats against Audlehelm were not just unwarranted but could set a dangerous precedent for silencing public criticism.
The institute has called for the Iowa legislature to pass House File 472 or Senate File 47, anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) bills that allow citizens to quickly dismiss baseless defamation lawsuits aimed at intimidating free speech.
These bills would create a faster, more efficient process for defendants facing frivolous lawsuits, preventing them from spending large amounts of money to defend themselves.
Brian Morris, an attorney for the Institute for Justice, emphasized the importance of protecting Americans’ rights to criticize their government. “Rita exemplifies what America stands for,” Morris said, “She’s deeply engaged in her community, and when she speaks out, she’s only doing what the First Amendment guarantees.”
This issue isn’t isolated to just Audlehelm. The Institute for Justice has also represented Noah Petersen, an Iowan who was arrested for speaking during a city council meeting in Newton, Iowa.
Petersen criticized the mayor and police department, but his speech was deemed a violation of the law, and he faced criminal charges for “disrupting a lawful assembly.”
However, a magistrate ruled in his favor, stating that Petersen’s comments were protected by the First Amendment. His case highlights a broader issue of government officials trying to silence critics with legal threats.
Morris pointed out that cases like Audlehelm’s and Petersen’s underline a critical issue: when government officials retaliate against citizens for their criticism, it undermines the democratic process.
As Morris explained in his letter to Wilson, such actions harm democracy itself: “Democracies falter when citizens lose interest or cannot ask questions, seek answers, and make comments without fearing government reprisal.”
The case also draws attention to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan case of 1964, which reinforced that the First Amendment guarantees Americans the right to engage in open, robust debate about public issues, even if the discussion includes sharp and sometimes caustic criticisms of government officials.
Audlehelm’s letter to the editor was a response to Fulkerson’s absences from Board of Supervisors meetings, something that she felt needed public attention.
Rather than defending her right to criticize, county officials chose to try to silence her through threats of legal action. In his letter to Wilson, Morris suggested that if the county is unhappy with Audlehelm’s comments, the solution isn’t to punish her for speaking out.
Instead, Morris recommended that the county increase public access to meetings by live-streaming and archiving the sessions.
This would allow the public to be more informed and not rely solely on Audlehelm’s reports of the meetings.
Morris also formally requested that Wilson retract his defamation threat and publicly acknowledge Audlehelm’s First Amendment rights. He stressed that such actions should be taken seriously to prevent the chilling effect on free speech, which would harm not just Audlehelm but all Iowans.
The efforts to stifle critics go beyond local cases like Audlehelm’s. On a national level, former President Donald Trump has faced criticism for his attempts to punish those who disagreed with him, including media outlets, academic institutions, and lawyers involved in investigations into his actions. These examples illustrate a broader effort to limit free speech and silence opposition, which is a key issue for citizens and democracy.
In his letter to Wilson, Morris also made a point that applied to the former president as well: “Like everyone here in America, Ms. Audlehelm has views on governance that are shared by some and disliked by others.
Thankfully, the First Amendment stands ready to protect our right to disagree with our elected officials.”
The principle of free speech is essential in America, and actions like those seen in Decatur County remind us why it must be defended. Efforts to intimidate critics through baseless lawsuits only weaken democracy and infringe on the rights of citizens to engage in public discourse.