Thread: Is free speech grounds for a search?

My question tonight is this...

If an American citizen is targeted for a search by the police or FBI simply on the basis of that individual's public statements, does that constitute a violation of that citizens free speech, and a violation of the first amendment?

An example would be if an American citizen went online to a public forum and started criticizing United States policy towards Iran.

At what point does an American citizen cross the line from free speech to possible criminal behavior?

What if no calls to violence are made?

What if there is no support for violence whatsoever?

What if there is no support for any group which supports violence, or even any suggestion of support for committing any crime whatsoever?

If the police or FBI download or install something to your computer that allows them to see what files exist on your hard drive, does that constitute a search?

Even if they go to getawarrant.com: The Leading Warrant Site on the Net or dial 1-800-war-rant first.

Can an individual be targeted for a police or FBI search simply on the basis of that individual's public statements?

Why or why not?

And if so, what kind of speech would the first amendment still protect?

radio talk show hosts are constantly subject to IRS audits cause of what they say on the air....It is against thier 1 amendment rights but that still doesn't stop it from happening cause we the people allow it to.

Depends on whether the search is based on a real concern, or is retaliation. Usually it's retaliation. And frankly, heads should start rolling when that happens.

Originally Posted by adaher

Depends on whether the search is based on a real concern, or is retaliation. Usually it's retaliation. And frankly, heads should start rolling when that happens.

Who is going to retaliate? The people who order it? Think they're going to limit their own power? Wake up.

I'm not tracking on how this is a 1st Amendment issue?

The 1st Amendment allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government.

A post facto investigation by the government into something you've said or your motivations for saying it doesn't interfere with your ability or your right to express yourself.

To take it even further, being held accountable for the things that you say, or consequences that arise from your having said them, doesn't interfere with your ability or your right to express yourself either.

If the government were to censor your speech, or actually punish you (as opposed to simply investigating you) because it didn't like what you had to say (and assuming that what you had to say didn't fall into one of the classes of unprotected speech) then I'd see the 1st Amendment violation. But what you've described here just sounds like law enforcement doing what law enforcement is supposed to do: investigating possible violations of the law, finding nothing to prosecute, and moving along having taken no further action than the investigation itself.

Originally Posted by .3dontVoteParty

My question tonight is this...

If an American citizen is targeted for a search by the police or FBI simply on the basis of that individual's public statements, does that constitute a violation of that citizens free speech, and a violation of the first amendment?

An example would be if an American citizen went online to a public forum and started criticizing United States policy towards Iran.

At what point does an American citizen cross the line from free speech to possible criminal behavior?

What if no calls to violence are made?

What if there is no support for violence whatsoever?

What if there is no support for any group which supports violence, or even any suggestion of support for committing any crime whatsoever?

If the police or FBI download or install something to your computer that allows them to see what files exist on your hard drive, does that constitute a search?

Even if they go to getawarrant.com: The Leading Warrant Site on the Net or dial 1-800-war-rant first.

Can an individual be targeted for a police or FBI search simply on the basis of that individual's public statements?

Why or why not?

And if so, what kind of speech would the first amendment still protect?

You can be investigated without participating in any criminal behavior. The government need only suspect criminal behavior. If someone feels your free speech warrants investigation there may indeed be an investigation. Investigation is however not punishment and doesn't restrict your speech.

If someone made public statements about bomb design and asked for advice from others on improving bomb design and the most effective use of a bomb would it be out of line for authorities to think the individual may indeed be constructing an illegal explosive device?
An investigation could quickly determine if there was any risk and the only way authorities would ever notice may indeed be the free speech expressed by that person who may indeed turn out to be simply curious.

You are allowed pretty hateful speech as an individual and it's not criminal until it's truly criminal threatening.

I guess it all depends on if you wish to be blind to the use of investigations to intimidate others into silence. I would be mighty intimidated if the FBI was searching my life cause I said something about the government. to many seem of the Clinton school of what "is" is.

Originally Posted by soot

I'm not tracking on how this is a 1st Amendment issue?

I'm allowed to say I don't like Obama. He's not allowed to throw me in jail if I do. That's freedom of speech. But to take things to an extreme, is he allowed to have my taxes audited, thereby wasting a lot of my time and perhaps putting my job in jeopardy? Is he allowed to have the IRS play super-hard-ball in the process, freezing my finances, perhaps dragging my name through the mud, and thus jeopardizing my marriage? Can he have the company I work for audited as well, perhaps with subtle hints that things would go easier if I were unemployed? Can he apply political pressure on local officials via approval/rejection of various grants etc so that my property taxes are maximized, I'm more likely to face prosecution for minor infractions rather than the more customary fines, etc? Can he influence various levels of government to reduce my kids' college financial aid? And/or to look the other way in the event there are any legal infractions made against me or mine? How is having my life ruined for speaking out any better than being jailed for speaking out?

I'm not saying all this would happen - It's obviously inappropriate. But is it okay if we just drop one part of that list? Two things? At what point is it 'official prerogative' rather than 'unconstitutional abuse'? Half of those things? 3? How is that 'more legal' or otherwise markedly different than suffering 1, or 2, or 4?

(And although I wouldn't put this past Obama, I'm sure he's not the only high ranking politician, or from the only party, that could conceivably do things along these lines.)

Originally Posted by thanatos144

I guess it all depends on if you wish to be blind to the use of investigations to intimidate others into silence. I would be mighty intimidated if the FBI was searching my life cause I said something about the government. to many seem of the Clinton school of what "is" is.

Anybody can be investigated for anything by anyone, as long as no use is made of the information. Indeed, in the US I can make use of the info, even harmful use and it doesn't even have to be true, just so long as it can't be proven I MEANT to do you harm with it

By the logic you're expressing I can't report news or history or anything at all, it might "intimidate" the subject.

Originally Posted by Evil_inKarlate

I'm allowed to say I don't like Obama. He's not allowed to throw me in jail if I do. That's freedom of speech. But to take things to an extreme, is he allowed to have my taxes audited, thereby wasting a lot of my time and perhaps putting my job in jeopardy? Is he allowed to have the IRS play super-hard-ball in the process, freezing my finances, perhaps dragging my name through the mud, and thus jeopardizing my marriage? Can he have the company I work for audited as well, perhaps with subtle hints that things would go easier if I were unemployed? Can he apply political pressure on local officials via approval/rejection of various grants etc so that my property taxes are maximized, I'm more likely to face prosecution for minor infractions rather than the more customary fines, etc? Can he influence various levels of government to reduce my kids' college financial aid? And/or to look the other way in the event there are any legal infractions made against me or mine? How is having my life ruined for speaking out any better than being jailed for speaking out?

I'm not saying all this would happen - It's obviously inappropriate. But is it okay if we just drop one part of that list? Two things? At what point is it 'official prerogative' rather than 'unconstitutional abuse'? Half of those things? 3? How is that 'more legal' or otherwise markedly different than suffering 1, or 2, or 4?

(And although I wouldn't put this past Obama, I'm sure he's not the only high ranking politician, or from the only party, that could conceivably do things along these lines.)

You could do any of those things. You could hire a hit man to just kill the guy, but in neither case had you better be caught, for you will be going to jail for a long time.