AG Bird’s office taking over pointless Iowa City criminal case

Recently Iowa City man Daniel Kauble was charged with harassment, identity theft and witness tampering for setting up a parody account in the name of University of Iowa Police Detective Ian Mallory.

Parody accounts on X are protected speech under the 1st Amendment. There was no identity theft, Kauble merely made a throwaway email account with Mallory's name in order create the account on X. No rational person familiar with the context of Kauble's posts would think they were made by Mallory. The idea that there was any witness tampering involved is patently absurd. What witness? What acts do they allege this tampering entailed? As for harassment, Mallory is a public figure by virtue of his job and his public testimony in trials of demonstrators. Public figures are not immune to ridicule.

It's telling that Johnson County Attorney Rachel Zimmerman Smith was not involved in bringing these charges. The County Attorney no doubt feels burned by the Tara Dutcher acquittal, a case where Ian Mallory testified. As with Dutcher, this prosecution will end in acquittal. Iowa Attorney General Bird has to know this is an embarrassingly weak case. It's only purpose is to harass demonstrators and muzzle free speech.

Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird needs to do her actual job. How does prosecuting Kauble make Iowans safer? Is it really a crime to hurt a police detective's feelings? Can Bird point to a single accomplishment in her job that's anything other than political theater?

Kent Williams

Iowa City