A federal judge has ruled that it’s not illegal to tell Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials that their actions will haunt them. This came in the form of a three-paragraph email sent by David Streever to then-acting director Todd Lyons, where Streever called Lyons a 'monstrous human being' and compared him to a notorious Nazi cop. The email, which was sent in January, was a response to two Minnesota protestors being killed by ICE-aligned officers. Streever’s email, far from a violent threat, was a morally condemning statement.

ICE’s response was anything but proportional. Five months after receiving the email, ICE served a warning notice at Streever’s home, claiming that his note might constitute a criminal threat of violence. The warnings, usually reserved for threats of assault, kidnapping, or murder, were used to warn Streever to stop speaking critically of ICE leadership or risk prosecution.

Because Streever wasn’t present during the visit, agents tracked him down to a hotel, an action described as ‘greatly alarming’ by his lawyers at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The incident has led Streever to practice self-censorship, fearing government retaliation. This case highlights the thin line between free speech and criminal threats, a line that seems to be moving further into the realm of subjective interpretation.

This ruling comes at a time when discussions around free speech and the role of government in regulating it are more pertinent than ever. The case of Streever and ICE raises questions about the balance between protecting public officials and upholding the right to free expression.