WQYU – Blog

A recent news article published by NYTimes is claiming that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has sent legal requests Google, Meta and other companies by sending hundreds of subpoenas to get personally identifiable information (PII) on individuals who track and criticize Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

If DHS is monitoring, requesting personally identifiable information on people who criticize ICE as what the NTTimes is reporting on, than this is a very troubling issue and DHS is not just going after those who are committing crimes but those who are clearly protected under the First Amendment than we need to call for a congressional hearing.

There is a fine and clear line between protected speech even if the speech is criticism, not popular of the government as this is sacred under the First Amendment, but when the speech crossing the line the courts do not uphold the defence of this is protected if the the speech meats the following such as but not limited to:

• Stalking involves tracking someone in a way that causes fear, with the intent to intimidate or harm.
• Harassment involves targeting someone to cause fear, with the intent to intimidate or harm.
• Doxxing involves publishing private information like addresses, phone numbers with malicious intent.
• Threats/threatening is when someone says they are going to do something that causes fear, with the intent to intimidate or cause harm.

When someone crosses this line by intentionaling stalking, harassment, doxxing and/or making threats, they are crimes and the courts including the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear this is not protected speech.

The problem arises if government agencies begin targeting individuals solely for legitimate criticism. Using legal requests to obtain the personal data of critics could constitute retaliation against protected speech, a clear First Amendment violation. Courts generally dismiss charges in such cases, and the Supreme Court has historically defended the right to criticize government officials without fear of reprisal.

At the same time, it’s important to be precise. Criticism is protected; stalking, harassment, doxxing and/or making threats is not. stalking, harassment, doxxing and/or making threats is punishable; lawful dissent is untouchable. Anyone engaging in stalking, harassment, doxxing and/or making threats could or may face serious consequences—but those who are merely speaking out against government policy should not.

If the reports are true, DHS risks crossing a dangerous line. The First Amendment is designed to protect exactly this kind of civic engagement: questioning, criticizing, and holding the powerful accountable. Using government power to chill that speech undermines the very democracy it claims to defend.

References:

• Legal Information Institute – Stalking: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stalking
• U.S. Department of Justice – Harassment: https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ccips/harassment
• Electronic Frontier Foundation – Doxxing: https://www.eff.org/issues/doxxing
• Supreme Court – First Amendment and Threats: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/10-699
• Legal Information Institute – First Amendment: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment