A second resident from upstate New York reported receiving a warning from federal officers regarding online activity criticizing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). David Streever from Rochester was informed through a notice handed to his wife during his trip to Finland. This notice pertained to an email he sent in January to Todd Lyons, then acting director of ICE, following the fatal shooting of Renee Good during an anti-ICE protest in Minneapolis.
Streever’s attorney, Adam Steinbaugh, stated that Streever had referred to Lyons as “a monstrous human being” in the email, expressing his outrage. Steinbaugh emphasized that such communication is political speech and falls under protected speech, arguing that it does not constitute a true threat which implies an intent to commit violence.
The same week, poll worker Paigelynne Gonyea from Syracuse was also approached by federal officers at a voting location. This encounter followed her social media post about the ICE officer involved in Good’s shooting. Agents also attempted to locate Streever at a New York City hotel upon his return from Finland, but hotel staff denied access.
The ICE released a statement indicating that all credible threats towards its employees and officers are investigated. The situation has raised concerns among free speech advocates who view these federal actions as attempts to infringe on privacy and suppress freedom of expression. The ACLU’s Nathan Freed Wessler described the incidents as abuses of power, opposing the targeting of individuals for expressing governmental criticism.
Gonyea, who posted about Jonathan Ross, the ICE officer who shot Good, on social media, believes her warning was due to sharing a picture and comment urging indictment. An additional social media post by Gonyea allegedly shared Ross’s address, which was partially redacted by the Department of Homeland Security spokespeople.
The New York Attorney General’s Office confirmed awareness of federal contacts with the two individuals and is reviewing the voter interaction incident. The events have fueled debate over how federal enforcement intersects with First Amendment rights, reinforcing concerns over federal overreach in freedom of speech matters.