Receiving criticism an essential part of government jobs

Whether you work for the federal, state or local government, you best just accept that blame and criticism go with the job and move ahead.

Decatur County Attorney Alan Wilson learned that lesson a few years ago. 

So, too, did Michael Hansen, the Newton mayor at the time.

It is a lesson top officials at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will have to learn for themselves.

These learning opportunities are grounded in an important principle — that all people in the United States are free to criticize government officials without fear of punishment or retribution.

The reminder comes five months after a Rochester, N.Y., man, David Streever, wrote to the head of ICE during its January crackdown in Minnesota that led to the deaths of two protesters who were shot by ICE agents.

Streever did not sugar-coat his opinions about ICE or Todd Lyons, ICE’s top administrator at the time.

“You are a monstrous human being and will go down in history as America’s Reinhard Heydrich, the butcher,” Streever said in an email to Lyons, making a reference to the Nazi war criminal. “The way you are protecting the obvious execution in Minnesota, even as we see the videos, will lead to your downfall.”

Penning an angry note to political leaders is an American tradition that goes back to quills and scrolls. Streever might be guilty of rude, exaggerated commentary, but his comments are protected by the First Amendment’s free speech right and by people’s right to seek a redress of grievances against their government.

Lyons did not see Streever’s criticism in a patriotic light, however. 

Last month, two federal agents knocked on Streever’s door to deliver a “WARNING NOTICE” that informed him he may be violating federal law with his email. “This notice officially informs you that it is unlawful to threaten to assault, kidnap, and/or murder a federal official or that federal official’s immediate family member with the intent to impede, intimidate, and/or interfere with the federal official’s duties or retaliate against a federal official due to the performance of their duties,” the notice read. 

The notice insisted he needed to discontinue his behavior and warned that further action might be taken if he continues with his “criminal activities.”

Every person in the United States, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum, should be concerned at the actions by the ICE agents’ actions in Rochester and days later when they showed up at a New York City hotel where Streever and his daughter were staying. The agents warned him again he could face criminal prosecution for his comments.

The issue is not whether Streever’s language was civil or tasteful. It wasn’t. But that does not mean the federal government can threaten criminal prosecution simply to discourage criticism of public officials.

To allow otherwise forgets our roots, and our rights.

Our country’s founders lived under the rule of the British king, when criticism constituted disloyalty. To eliminate that rule of unyielding fealty, the founders added 10 amendments to the new Constitution. Those amendments became our Bill of Rights. 

The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights — with its five fundamental freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, the press, and the right of people to petition their government for “a redress of grievances” — cast away the vestiges of government-mandated fidelity to the king and to the rulers.

The last of those five freedoms, guaranteeing the right to petition for a redress of grievances, gave everyone with the right to complain about their government and to seek change, even if the messaging about the grievance was overly passionate or unduly rude.

Thankfully, our courts have not shied from enforcing those rights, even when the underlying message was crass and careless.

The Supreme Court upheld the right of Robert Watts, a young opponent of the Vietnam War and military draft, to declare at a public rally, “The first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.” — a reference to President Lyndon Johnson. The justices threw out his conviction because they concluded his statement was not a true threat against the president.

The court held five years earlier, in the New York Times v. Sullivan case, that public officials must expect “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks” as part of our democratic government. 

And in a 1982 case arising from civil rights protests in Mississippi, the court found that impassioned political advocacy is protected by the Constitution unless it crosses the line to become true threats or violent conduct.

No one disputes that government may investigate and act on credible threats of injury made against government officials. But that is not what David Streever uttered in his email.

Last week, his attorneys sued the Department of Homeland Security and ICE, accusing them of violating Streever’s constitutional rights as they tried to use the power of government to silence his criticism. 

Sadly, this is a story that has happened closer to home, too, as mentioned earlier with the references to Decatur County and the City of Newton.

You may recall the case of Rita Audlehelm, the Decatur County retiree, who wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper criticizing the months-long absence of a county supervisor. 

Or the case of Noah Petersen, who called the mayor and Newton police chief “fascists” during a city council meeting. 

In each instance a public official in a position of power sought to silence these critics though retaliatory actions by threatening litigation or prosecution.

But those Iowa government officials backed off once attorneys for Audlehelm and Petersen delivered stern reminders that criticizing government is a right, not an act that officials can punish or enjoin. 

In Iowa, as in New York, the Constitution requires that government officials must tolerate speech even if they regard it as unfair, insulting or outrageous. 

That is not a flaw in our Constitution. That is a strength.