"Very early in this post-arrest period, MIT decided to “remain neutral,” as between the government and Aaron Swartz, in the investigation and eventual prosecution. Initially this meant simply that MIT would not take a public position on the prosecution.Throughout the following (almost) two years, MIT’s decisions were mostly guided by this posture of neutrality."
"With regard to substance, MIT would make no statements, whether in support or in opposition, about the government’s decision to prosecute Aaron Swartz, the government’s decisions about charges in an indictment, or any possible plea bargain stances of the prosecution or the defense. [15]"
"[15]: This position of neutrality would not have necessarily extended to the sentencing phase of the prosecution, where MIT might have been prepared to advocate on behalf of Aaron Swartz had he been convicted."
"Very early in this post-arrest period, MIT decided to “remain neutral,” as between the government and Aaron Swartz, in the investigation and eventual prosecution. Initially this meant simply that MIT would not take a public position on the prosecution.Throughout the following (almost) two years, MIT’s decisions were mostly guided by this posture of neutrality."
"With regard to substance, MIT would make no statements, whether in support or in opposition, about the government’s decision to prosecute Aaron Swartz, the government’s decisions about charges in an indictment, or any possible plea bargain stances of the prosecution or the defense. [15]"
"[15]: This position of neutrality would not have necessarily extended to the sentencing phase of the prosecution, where MIT might have been prepared to advocate on behalf of Aaron Swartz had he been convicted."