He sent a harsh email to ICE's top official. Federal agents tracked him down(www.npr.org)
28 pointsby OutOfHere6 hours ago3 comments
  • ChiperSoft5 hours ago
    I know the ACLU is involved, but for crying out loud, the very first thing they should have done after the first visit was call a lawyer, before he even got on a plane to come home.
  • vrsgjye5 hours ago
    [dead]
  • gordian-mind4 hours ago
    "[...] you will be a sad, despised man who eats himself alive with shame at your own pathetic weakness.

    You will never know peace. You will seek to lose yourself, to escape the burden of knowing the truth about yourself. But wherever you go, you will find yourself. You will torment yourself until your last day on Earth,"

    This is not "criticism".

    In any country on Earth, sending this to a senior law-enforcement official would not end with a polite request to fill out a voluntary statement form.

    The man got the softest possible visit from the security state and came away narrating it like a dissident memoir.

    • neuroticnews254 hours ago
      I can understand there are acceptable reasons other than intimidation to check on people sending letters like this, but this absolutely is non-violent criticism.
      • gordian-mind2 hours ago
        This is a deranged letter full of curses titled "What's next". Besides the fact that nowadays the main purpose of calling someone a nazi is to encourage violence against them (e.g., Charlie Kirk), the fact there are no direct threats does not mean its author should not be checked on. Even then, and it feels weird to have to state this after years of "microaggression" discourse: personal harassment is not OK.
      • OutOfHere3 hours ago
        There is no acceptable reason to "check on" him for it. It is political criticism written in an attention gathering way is all. Odds are that a standard critical message would never gain the mind's attention, so people have to get creative.

        Also, for better or worse, the "check" these days allegedly happens more commonly by hacking into the person's devices to monitor them for a while.

        • phendrenad22 hours ago
          People are consistently surprised when the government doesn't operate exactly according to the letter of the law. There are ample opportunities to learn this before you get to this point. Jaywalking may be illegal but people do it right in front of a cop and get away with it. Likewise plenty of things that are perfectly legal attract law enforcement attention. If you asked 100 people on the street if that letter constitutes a threat, I believe that 5-10% would say yes, so sending something like that is definitely asking for trouble. And yes, I'm victim-blaming, because the victim is partially to blame.
    • OutOfHere3 hours ago
      It is not a threat. All else is legally allowed.

      The man's right to petition his government was harmed. And did he have to petition in this way? Yes, he absolutely did, for they listen to nothing else.

    • goatlover3 hours ago
      Where's the threat that would necessitate a visit? It's not like he had a pizza delivered to the official's home.