ICE Admits It Investigated a Critic Based on Constitutionally Protected Speech
10 hours ago by CubitOom to c/politics
Last June, two investigators employed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) showed up at David Streever's house in Rochester, New York. Streever was not home, so they left him a note.
That note, presented as an official warning from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is at the center of a First Amendment lawsuit that Streever filed last month, alleging that ICE agents investigated and threatened him based on his constitutionally protected criticism of their boss. This month, the government responded to Streever's lawsuit, confirming his allegations while attempting to rebut them.
For more information, either visit the article directly or view the post with quotes in !crimes_of_ice@lemmy.4d2.org
While the actions of ICE are predictably henious, the article is missing the point in favor of the more shocking headline.
Seeking dismissal of Streever’s lawsuit, the government’s lawyers concede his email to Lyons “put words to his disagreements with a current administration official.” In other words, they admit he was investigated because of speech protected by the First Amendment.
Almost everything you say is protected speech. "I did it, I stabbed him, it was me, muahahaha" is absolutely protected by the 1st amendment and you can shout it all you want, but when you're shouting it outside a daycare it's also a totally valid justification for someone taking a quick peek at what you've got stashed in your freezer. Or the less hyperbolic example of someone bragging about their crimes on facebook - totally 100% protected speech, the cops can't prevent you from saying that, but the cops can use it as a reason to investigate you.
The issue isn't that he was investigated for 1st amendment protected speech, the issue is that they made crystal clear that they considered the investigation spurious and it was intended only to intimidate him by dropping it after they encountered the slightest difficulty. Unfortunately, that might be very difficult for him to prove. But hopefully he has even a middling decent lawyer as these chucklefucks haven't got what I'd call a "great" track record of successfully defending themselves in court, so fingers crossed.
The lawyer wins, and he gets paid mainly by you and other Democrats because Blue states contribute the most to the federal government.
It's win win for ICE. They get to intimidate anyone and if found in the wrong, they make you pay for it.
This won't change until jail time is the penalty instead of the government (you) only giving money to the injured.
Criticizing a government agency is NOT probable cause to investigate someone in the US, as per the Courts going back decades. It's not reasonable suspicion either.
Your comment conflating confessing to murder with criticizing the government is frankly [redatcted.]
Well huh, you sure are confident! Given how often I fact check other people on here, I'd be the queen of hypocrites if I didn't welcome it when it happens to me. So go on, please tell me all about these mysterious decades of court rulings that broadly apply evidentiary standards to the opening of an investigation. I do hope it's not something like Cornell v US, that sure would be a letdown after such a bold and assertive assertion of falsehood.
Aaaanyways, I'll just sit here patiently while you get that all together, no rush. In your own time. When you're ready. You got this, champ.
I believe it was after 9/11 they were surveilling Muslims for first amendment protected activity and the courts told the FBI to fuck off and that they needed a real reason. They reference that ruling in the news regularly as it comes up every so often.
My goodness, how fascinating! And here I was, laboring under the apparently false notion that warranted exceptions to the 4th amendment are just one small aspect of the investigatory process (which is itself an aspect of the criminal legal process), but that in of themselves they do not inherently constitute the whole of an investigation.
Goodness me though, now that you've dropped such persuasive evidence of my total lack of understanding I might even fall to questioning everything I know. Is up, down? Is black, white? My god, the impact of such a sincerely held belief relayed by someone with such swaggering confidence, well that's just too much to ignore!
Your examples are entirely off topic. To arrest or search you, they need probable cause, under the 4th amendment. Unquestionable admission of a crime, like "I stabbed him", hands them that probable cause. That has nothing to do with 1st amendment protections. Also whether or not they have the authority to search your freezer would be entirely dependent on if they can get a judge to agree that there is probable cause to think there is a body on your property and sign a warrant. They can't just search your freezer because they heard you say, generally, that you stabbed someone.
They can unintrusively investigate anything that is publically available to them to find suspicious activity that may indicate a crime has occurred or may occur. That's all fine. But anything done without legal cause to chill protected speech by the government that is not due to basic time, place, and manner restrictions applied in a content-neutral way is a violation of the constitution.
The investigation is not the problem so long as they didn't violate his 4th amendment rights in the process. But coming to his home to tell him that he was being investigated due to the criticisms he'd voiced is a clear attempt at intimidation to quell future speech. That is blatantly unconstitutional.
They can unintrusively investigate anything that is publically available to them to find suspicious activity that may indicate a crime has occurred or may occur.
Say, perhaps like... something you've posted on facebook? Is that the kind of unobtrusive investigation of publicly available information you mean?
(Everything else broadly seems to be restating what I've already said, so I'm not super sure what your goal is in bringing this up was. Yes, what we know of the investigation likely was not a violation of the 4th amendment (or any other statute) except in that it was clearly done to intimidate - something that is unfortunately fairly difficult to prove.)
You were the one equating the investigation of someone admitting to murder by looking in their freezer with the investigation of Facebook posts.
And the intimidation is not hard to prove. If the effect of their conduct is chilling protected speech for a reasonable person, then it's unconstitutional. Intent is not necessary.
Yes, I sure was! Because, while both describe different avenues for protected speech to be investigated, both are the result of protected speech being investigated. There is no functional legal difference between either example of speech - both are constitutionally protected, and unless you were violating other laws (say something super legit, like 'disturbing the peace', anti-harassment orders, the list is long) it would be illegal for the police to prevent you from saying it.
That is what protected speech entails - it does not absolve you of potential consequences of that speech (the classic example is "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater", but my above examples of confessing to a murder/crime apply as well), it just means you cannot be prevented from speaking it
And the intimidation is not hard to prove.
Are you sure about that? It's really quite a high standard of evidence in a biased court system to demonstrate police harassment or intimidation or what have you at the federal level. There are far harder things to prove sure, but it's solidly not on the "Easy" end of the spectrum.
Because of course they did
The cowards can’t even put their names behind it.
Gestapo fucks. Fuck ICE.
Wild. What about all the other crimes?
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
Our "rights" don't mean shit if nobody ever gets held accountable for this.
save