A Chicago judge censored the face of an ICE agent during a public court proceeding, despite his name and other identifying information being publicly available on social media. The decision was made in a case where the government claimed that ICE Deputy Field Office Director Shawn Byers faced threats and needed to protect his identity.
The government's claims were based on allegedly bountied heads of immigration agents, with one bounty said to be worth $50,000. However, no evidence was presented to support these claims, and the judge later expressed her skepticism about the validity of the government's narrative.
During a private conference with Judge Sara Ellis, government attorneys asked for the courtroom sketch artist not to draw Byers' face, citing concerns about his safety. When the judge asked why he needed protection, Department of Justice attorney Samuel Holt replied that it was because his name and picture were available online.
However, a simple Google search revealed that Byers' LinkedIn profile contained his photo, job title, and location. The judge later joked that she felt "foolish" in trying to protect him from the threat of being recognized due to his publicly available information.
The incident highlights the government's repeated claims that naming public officials at the center of major news stories is "doxing" or other inappropriate. However, these claims are often based on misinformation and are used to justify secrecy and shield administration officials from accountability.
In this case, Byers' manufactured emergency seemed to be driven by a desire to shield immigration agents from accountability under the guise of protecting public officials' safety. The incident is an example of the current playbook being used by the government to silence critics and obscure the truth.
The Intercept notes that judges need to demand specifics and evidence about threats made against government officials, particularly when it comes to claims like these that are often baseless and misinformed. The media also needs to be skeptical of these narratives and not take them at face value from an administration with a long history of misleading the public.
Ultimately, the incident highlights the need for transparency and accountability in government, as well as the importance of press freedom in defending democracy against those who seek to undermine it.
The government's claims were based on allegedly bountied heads of immigration agents, with one bounty said to be worth $50,000. However, no evidence was presented to support these claims, and the judge later expressed her skepticism about the validity of the government's narrative.
During a private conference with Judge Sara Ellis, government attorneys asked for the courtroom sketch artist not to draw Byers' face, citing concerns about his safety. When the judge asked why he needed protection, Department of Justice attorney Samuel Holt replied that it was because his name and picture were available online.
However, a simple Google search revealed that Byers' LinkedIn profile contained his photo, job title, and location. The judge later joked that she felt "foolish" in trying to protect him from the threat of being recognized due to his publicly available information.
The incident highlights the government's repeated claims that naming public officials at the center of major news stories is "doxing" or other inappropriate. However, these claims are often based on misinformation and are used to justify secrecy and shield administration officials from accountability.
In this case, Byers' manufactured emergency seemed to be driven by a desire to shield immigration agents from accountability under the guise of protecting public officials' safety. The incident is an example of the current playbook being used by the government to silence critics and obscure the truth.
The Intercept notes that judges need to demand specifics and evidence about threats made against government officials, particularly when it comes to claims like these that are often baseless and misinformed. The media also needs to be skeptical of these narratives and not take them at face value from an administration with a long history of misleading the public.
Ultimately, the incident highlights the need for transparency and accountability in government, as well as the importance of press freedom in defending democracy against those who seek to undermine it.
Wow 
Immigration agents think they're above public scrutiny? 
Their "emergencies" are just a shield to avoid accountability 
Judges need to call out these baseless claims and demand evidence 
The media should be skeptical too, not swallow the government's narrative hook, line, and sinker 
. The whole thing feels like an attempt to silence critics and obscure the truth 
. I think judges should always demand specifics and evidence about threats made against government officials, not just take their word for it 
. And btw, $50k bounty on ICE agents? That's some wild stuff 
!
, but no evidence was ever presented to support those claims 
. A quick Google search would've revealed his LinkedIn profile with a pic of him and all that jazz 
.
, but really it's just them trying to hide their own mistakes 
. And now we see how easily judges can get manipulated into playing along with their narrative 
. Judges need to be way more vigilant about the facts here and not let the gov't spin this stuff 
.
. It's all about accountability and transparency, you know? 
! I mean, come on, $50k bounty is some weak sauce 
. The government's trying to pull a fast one here 
, but the media's been all over their claims 
. I think this incident is a major win for transparency and press freedom 
.
this is getting ridiculous! Who thought it was necessary to censor an ICE agent's face during a court proceeding? 
It's like she got played by the gov's fancy lawyer talk 
! I mean, come on, a $50k bounty doesn't necessarily equal imminent danger 
, but this judge wasn't having it 
. This whole situation just reeks of a manufactured emergency to avoid scrutiny 
. The media needs to be more critical of these narratives and not take them at face value, you know? 
.
I mean, if a judge can't even figure out how to fact-check one guy's claim, what's good? 
and they're using that as an excuse for "doxing" him? 
. The fact that the judge felt "foolish" for going along with it is pretty telling...we need more critical thinking in our institutions, stat! 
. The gov's trying to hide something from us, but really they're just protecting their own 
it's like the gov's trying to make a big production out of nothing 
. And the media needs to keep calling them out on this stuff too 