My comment is not based on a review of the case; rather, it is based on the ambiguity and assumptions within this post.
Perhaps the response from ICE was disingenous. However, there may be a distinction between commenting "right after the domain name seizures," and commenting while the matter is "before [the] court."
The first may be to inform the media of the prospect of pending charges (which seems acceptable even from the perspective of the court, and desirable from that of the public). The second might be perceived by all parties as an attempt to manipulate the legal process.
I'm not suggesting ICE is blameless; I'm not making any claims about their behavior in any other context. I'm simply pointing out that this post DOES answer exactly the question it claims was NOT answered. The quotes in this post make ICE's explanation for refusing to speak clear: the case is in court.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Nexcerpt.
Wanting evidence may lead to finding evidence
Perhaps the response from ICE was disingenous. However, there may be a distinction between commenting "right after the domain name seizures," and commenting while the matter is "before [the] court."
The first may be to inform the media of the prospect of pending charges (which seems acceptable even from the perspective of the court, and desirable from that of the public). The second might be perceived by all parties as an attempt to manipulate the legal process.
I'm not suggesting ICE is blameless; I'm not making any claims about their behavior in any other context. I'm simply pointing out that this post DOES answer exactly the question it claims was NOT answered. The quotes in this post make ICE's explanation for refusing to speak clear: the case is in court.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Nexcerpt.
Submit a story now.