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 [email protected]

https://lemmy.4d2.org/post/4725923

  • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    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.

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      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.