5 ms·

So everyone who ever worked or met Epstein is guilty by association ? Is this what journalism is ? - Naming and Shaming people where there is no crime or uneth

by qazpot 7y ago

So everyone who ever worked or met Epstein is guilty by association ? Is this what journalism is ? - Naming and Shaming people where there is no crime or unethical act committed.

msghacq 7y ago
These people also socialized with him and when they accepted money from him it was after he was a convicted sex offender. Look at Ethan Zuckerman's post on leaving MIT where you can see he urged Joi Ito to not get involved with Epstein because it was already well known that he was abusing underage girls: http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2019/08/20/on-me-and-the-media-lab/ http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2019/08/20/on-me-and-the-...
- natalyarostova 7y ago
  Should we shame and refuse association with people who have already been tried and convicted and served their punishment? And should we then shame those who do work with people who went through the justice system? What about hiring people who are ex felons who served time? Who should decide what ex-cons we can and can't associate with? I'd like to know ahead of time, because I want to give the right people a second chance, but also avoid having my career ruined for giving the wrong person a second chance. Which twitter mob will enumerate this for me? Perhaps in this case the problem is that corruption resulted in Epstein getting far too light of a sentence. I think it did. Is it the fault of normal civilians for not realizing and compensating for judicial corruption? Should we ruin their careers for the failure of our elected officials to prevent corruption?
  - msghacq 7y ago
    Yes, it's not a good idea for high profile people (or anyone really) to work with convicted sex offenders. It was well known at the time that he got off very easy for his crimes. There was a lot of media coverage. Optically it's bad, morally it's bad. There's also more to this than just "work" as well. If someone was a convicted child rapist, would you invite them and a bunch of young women to your parties and take pictures like this? https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1165266579560521728 https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1165266579560521728
    - natalyarostova 7y ago
      I recognize the point you're making, and I think it's fair to an extent, Epstein was a weird disturbed man. But my general point remains: who can make this clear for me (us?) ahead of time. If the rule is "give people a second chance, except those accused of the following sex crimes -- they must be shamed forever" fine. But I want it clear. Otherwise I worry we will find ourselves in a world where everyone, in fear of their career, avoids ever associating with the wrong person. If we think our laws aren't working, so we need Twitter vigilante shame justice, i would prefer we rework our laws
      - msghacq 7y ago
        I don't think this is that unclear. 99% of people would not invite a convicted child rapist and his entourage of young women to a party, take pictures with them then fly in a private jet (already called the "Lolita Express") to his residences that have already been in the news for being the locations of child rape.
        natalyarostova 7y ago
        Yeah I agree with you, that's pretty clear. But I worry about edge cases, people who affiliated with him briefly.
        jacknews 7y ago
        he funded some scientists, whom he met by attending scientific conventions, or attracted via TED, etc, in many cases. I don't think there is any claim that these scientists attended his under-age orgies, and were thus granted funding.
    - luckylion 7y ago
      > Yes, it's not a good idea for high profile people (or anyone really) to work with convicted sex offenders. Doesn't that apply to all crimes that include victims? If I understand it correctly, that's the question there: do we treat a convicted sex offender differently than, say, a murderer or ponzi scheme operator? Critique regarding his deal and the punishment aside, do they get a clean slate after they've "paid their debt to society" or not?
  - psv1 7y ago
    > Who should decide what ex-cons we can and can't associate with? The answer to these questions is: It's totally up to you who you associate with.
  - TallGuyShort 7y ago
    I'm generally of the opinion that the way we treat registered sex offenders is counter-productive and that this article seems to be implying for more guilt than is reasonable, but saying that Epstein served his time is a stretch. He settled MANY civil cases out of court, and every judge involved that I'm aware of stinks to high heaven. First case found about 40 underage victims of things like paying them to undress and massage him, yet he comes away with a single assault charge. Eventually he is sent to jail, but basically comes and goes as he pleases - with a pretty generous work release schedule and probation agreement that he ultimately didn't even have to stick to. For a year.
  - dls2016 7y ago
    > Should we shame and refuse association with people who have already been tried and convicted and served their punishment? 1) His "punishment" was an illegally arranged joke. 2) There's a vast chasm between shaming someone convicted of a crime and Epstein's welcomed return to polite society. He should've been working a wage-slave job like the rest of us.
    - natalyarostova 7y ago
      So to be clear, I agree. It was a miscarriage of justice. My specific question is by what metric should we decide to ruin the career of a person who worked with him? Should we reasonably expect all persons to notice when justice isn't served due to corruption, and then ruin their career as a result?
      - jessaustin 7y ago
        Has anyone's career been ruined by this association? I don't think e.g. Trump or Clinton have suffered a bit...
      - dls2016 7y ago
        It's a moral metric, of course. But this case is so egregious I don't even know how to answer your question. > Should we reasonably expect all persons to notice when justice isn't served due to corruption, and then ruin their career as a result? For a well-documented monster? YES! Don't worry there are thousands of scientists ready to take the place of people like Pinker and the other "fallen heroes".
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    There was a difference between Epstein and the typical victims of overzealous moralizing sex offense prosecution, like 19yo boyfriends of 16yo women and drunks who urinate in public.
  - brnt 7y ago
    Should we ignore the fact that money unfortunately matters in the judiciary? There is no mechanism right now to counterbalance that greater power that comes with wealth. You are right, people who've served their time or paid their due should be afforded a second chance. After all, the goal of penalties is not revenge, it is rehabilitation: the hope that a person has changed their ways. However, in this particular case, insofar as events have even made it to a court decision, it seems at no point this person changed their ways, and simply used his wealth to fund the legal details of continuing his behavior. I'm not sure what methods exists or what methods could be invented to account for such misuse of wealth, but it is clear this person was afforded too many second chances: he seems to have never intended to correct his behavior. It seems to me that in that space it is valid to exercise your personal right to not associate with a lastingly suspect character.
- ubermonkey 7y ago
  Is it necessarily damning even then? I mean, if he had $25,000 to give to medical research, would you really care if he was a sex offender, or bank robber, or whatever?
akhilcacharya 7y ago
>So everyone who ever worked or met Epstein is guilty by association ? If you met him after his first brush with the law (and that's putting it very delicately) yes, you are guilty of association. I don't think it should be taken lightly. The article itself doesn't make any accusations outside of the association.
- qazpot 7y ago
  > you are guilty of association Guilty of which crime ?
  - nurettin 7y ago
    None, actually, you should be congratulated for taking it despite the crimes and putting it into good use. That is a sum he can't spend on getting out or abusing more children.
  - akhilcacharya 7y ago
    Who says all guilt must be criminal?
nabla9 7y ago
You are reading more to the article that what the article says. Epstein was some kind of confidence man and hustler in addition to using underage girls for sex. It's interesting to see how wide his network was. He was able to buy or wiggle into the life of these people using his money and connections.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> So everyone who ever worked or met Epstein is guilty by association ? I think “of interest by association” is more what is going on,and appropriately so. > Is this what journalism is ? - Naming and Shaming people where there is no crime or unethical act committed. “investigating and reporting facts related to matters of public interest even before it is clear what the import of those facts are, in part because that both provokes people to come forward with related information and enables additional parties to do their own related inquiries” would be more accurate than your loaded language, but, yes, reporting on matters that provide context to matters already in the public eye (which, in this case, do involve both crimes and other unethical acts) that are not themselves clearly criminal or unethical is an important part of journalism.
- qazpot 7y ago
  So if some Church pastor gets convicted for sexual abuse of children, Can buzzfeed publish the list of all church going members in the area with their photographs ?
  - wpietri 7y ago
    If those church members, as here, received large sums of money from the pastor? Or supported him publicly? 100% yes. I think it's especially obvious with churches. When a bunch of people get together to fund and empower a guy, they share responsibility for what is done with that power. If that power is used to harm, a factual accounting of who did what seems entirely fair, as does asking them what they have to say for themselves. Your analogy isn't very good, though, because all of the people mentioned in this article are public figures. They sought out prominent roles in society. They receive significant benefits from the public, either directly or indirectly.
- hos234 7y ago
  This is not Journalism. Journalism is what Julie Brown did since 2008. This is just Buzzfeed being buzzfeed getting some sure shot clicks.
  - 7y ago
5trokerac3 7y ago
I'm glad that this type of yellow journalism is starting to be recognized by the general populace. It's been getting worse for years. These are the same activists posing as journalists that label someone like Joe Rogan "alt-right adjacent" because he's willing to have a conversation with people right of center.
jacknews 7y ago
I agree, this witch-hunt journalism is BS. It's fine to bag politicians and 'other tycoons' who associated with him. There are legitimate concerns about influence and, you know, who else is a pedo, in those cases. But I think if I had been a scientist in need of funding, I'd gladly have taken his money, even knowing about the convictions. In fact, I'd have tried to to take as much as I possibly could, and then tell him to FO once I'd done my breakthrough study. It's different if the scientists were 'bending' their results to his benefit, but I don't think that's the case here.
- basilgohar 7y ago
  The awkward part of this is that it seems someone like Epstein did not do something for nothing. The suspicious aura around him means that all of these high-profile people around him may have done some kind of tit-for-tat. Yes, barring evidence, this is all very much hearsay and his untimely death closes a lot of doors to confirm these suspicions, but the amount of circumstantial evidence involving shadyvdealibgs with the guy is enough to make this kind of thing notable. And I absolutely think it matter where the money comes from, because not all money is equal. Funding agencies, grants, and other sources of money all have their own conditions, terms, and obligations. If you think Epstein's was without, then I think that is naïve.
  - jacknews 7y ago
    and that's exactly what I mentioned. If the money comes with terms, or expectations of some kind of reciprocation, of course, it must be rejected. If it's just money from a bad guy that happens to be interested in AI, medicine, or whatever, and I really suspect he justified himself by funding such 'good causes' - take it all! Ruin him!
    - msghacq 7y ago
      The thing is, high profile business and science people associating and partying with Epstein didn't ruin him, it legitimized him. They didn't just take a check, they invited him into their social and business circles and he intern did the same for them. He went on to continue raping girls during this time period (after his arrest) and the legitimacy these people provided did not help one bit, they basically reintegrated him into power.

by qazpot 7y ago

So everyone who ever worked or met Epstein is guilty by association ? Is this what journalism is ? - Naming and Shaming people where there is no crime or unethical act committed.

msghacq 7y ago

These people also socialized with him and when they accepted money from him it was after he was a convicted sex offender. Look at Ethan Zuckerman's post on leaving MIT where you can see he urged Joi Ito to not get involved with Epstein because it was already well known that he was abusing underage girls: http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2019/08/20/on-me-and-the-media-lab/ http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2019/08/20/on-me-and-the-...

natalyarostova 7y ago
Should we shame and refuse association with people who have already been tried and convicted and served their punishment? And should we then shame those who do work with people who went through the justice system? What about hiring people who are ex felons who served time? Who should decide what ex-cons we can and can't associate with? I'd like to know ahead of time, because I want to give the right people a second chance, but also avoid having my career ruined for giving the wrong person a second chance. Which twitter mob will enumerate this for me? Perhaps in this case the problem is that corruption resulted in Epstein getting far too light of a sentence. I think it did. Is it the fault of normal civilians for not realizing and compensating for judicial corruption? Should we ruin their careers for the failure of our elected officials to prevent corruption?
- msghacq 7y ago
  Yes, it's not a good idea for high profile people (or anyone really) to work with convicted sex offenders. It was well known at the time that he got off very easy for his crimes. There was a lot of media coverage. Optically it's bad, morally it's bad. There's also more to this than just "work" as well. If someone was a convicted child rapist, would you invite them and a bunch of young women to your parties and take pictures like this? https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1165266579560521728 https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1165266579560521728
  - natalyarostova 7y ago
    I recognize the point you're making, and I think it's fair to an extent, Epstein was a weird disturbed man. But my general point remains: who can make this clear for me (us?) ahead of time. If the rule is "give people a second chance, except those accused of the following sex crimes -- they must be shamed forever" fine. But I want it clear. Otherwise I worry we will find ourselves in a world where everyone, in fear of their career, avoids ever associating with the wrong person. If we think our laws aren't working, so we need Twitter vigilante shame justice, i would prefer we rework our laws
    - msghacq 7y ago
      I don't think this is that unclear. 99% of people would not invite a convicted child rapist and his entourage of young women to a party, take pictures with them then fly in a private jet (already called the "Lolita Express") to his residences that have already been in the news for being the locations of child rape.
      - natalyarostova 7y ago
        Yeah I agree with you, that's pretty clear. But I worry about edge cases, people who affiliated with him briefly.
      - jacknews 7y ago
        he funded some scientists, whom he met by attending scientific conventions, or attracted via TED, etc, in many cases. I don't think there is any claim that these scientists attended his under-age orgies, and were thus granted funding.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    > Yes, it's not a good idea for high profile people (or anyone really) to work with convicted sex offenders. Doesn't that apply to all crimes that include victims? If I understand it correctly, that's the question there: do we treat a convicted sex offender differently than, say, a murderer or ponzi scheme operator? Critique regarding his deal and the punishment aside, do they get a clean slate after they've "paid their debt to society" or not?
- psv1 7y ago
  > Who should decide what ex-cons we can and can't associate with? The answer to these questions is: It's totally up to you who you associate with.
- TallGuyShort 7y ago
  I'm generally of the opinion that the way we treat registered sex offenders is counter-productive and that this article seems to be implying for more guilt than is reasonable, but saying that Epstein served his time is a stretch. He settled MANY civil cases out of court, and every judge involved that I'm aware of stinks to high heaven. First case found about 40 underage victims of things like paying them to undress and massage him, yet he comes away with a single assault charge. Eventually he is sent to jail, but basically comes and goes as he pleases - with a pretty generous work release schedule and probation agreement that he ultimately didn't even have to stick to. For a year.
- dls2016 7y ago
  > Should we shame and refuse association with people who have already been tried and convicted and served their punishment? 1) His "punishment" was an illegally arranged joke. 2) There's a vast chasm between shaming someone convicted of a crime and Epstein's welcomed return to polite society. He should've been working a wage-slave job like the rest of us.
  - natalyarostova 7y ago
    So to be clear, I agree. It was a miscarriage of justice. My specific question is by what metric should we decide to ruin the career of a person who worked with him? Should we reasonably expect all persons to notice when justice isn't served due to corruption, and then ruin their career as a result?
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      Has anyone's career been ruined by this association? I don't think e.g. Trump or Clinton have suffered a bit...
    - dls2016 7y ago
      It's a moral metric, of course. But this case is so egregious I don't even know how to answer your question. > Should we reasonably expect all persons to notice when justice isn't served due to corruption, and then ruin their career as a result? For a well-documented monster? YES! Don't worry there are thousands of scientists ready to take the place of people like Pinker and the other "fallen heroes".
- jessaustin 7y ago
  There was a difference between Epstein and the typical victims of overzealous moralizing sex offense prosecution, like 19yo boyfriends of 16yo women and drunks who urinate in public.
- brnt 7y ago
  Should we ignore the fact that money unfortunately matters in the judiciary? There is no mechanism right now to counterbalance that greater power that comes with wealth. You are right, people who've served their time or paid their due should be afforded a second chance. After all, the goal of penalties is not revenge, it is rehabilitation: the hope that a person has changed their ways. However, in this particular case, insofar as events have even made it to a court decision, it seems at no point this person changed their ways, and simply used his wealth to fund the legal details of continuing his behavior. I'm not sure what methods exists or what methods could be invented to account for such misuse of wealth, but it is clear this person was afforded too many second chances: he seems to have never intended to correct his behavior. It seems to me that in that space it is valid to exercise your personal right to not associate with a lastingly suspect character.
ubermonkey 7y ago
Is it necessarily damning even then? I mean, if he had $25,000 to give to medical research, would you really care if he was a sex offender, or bank robber, or whatever?

akhilcacharya 7y ago

>So everyone who ever worked or met Epstein is guilty by association ? If you met him after his first brush with the law (and that's putting it very delicately) yes, you are guilty of association. I don't think it should be taken lightly. The article itself doesn't make any accusations outside of the association.

qazpot 7y ago
> you are guilty of association Guilty of which crime ?
- nurettin 7y ago
  None, actually, you should be congratulated for taking it despite the crimes and putting it into good use. That is a sum he can't spend on getting out or abusing more children.
- akhilcacharya 7y ago
  Who says all guilt must be criminal?

nabla9 7y ago

You are reading more to the article that what the article says. Epstein was some kind of confidence man and hustler in addition to using underage girls for sex. It's interesting to see how wide his network was. He was able to buy or wiggle into the life of these people using his money and connections.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> So everyone who ever worked or met Epstein is guilty by association ? I think “of interest by association” is more what is going on,and appropriately so. > Is this what journalism is ? - Naming and Shaming people where there is no crime or unethical act committed. “investigating and reporting facts related to matters of public interest even before it is clear what the import of those facts are, in part because that both provokes people to come forward with related information and enables additional parties to do their own related inquiries” would be more accurate than your loaded language, but, yes, reporting on matters that provide context to matters already in the public eye (which, in this case, do involve both crimes and other unethical acts) that are not themselves clearly criminal or unethical is an important part of journalism.

qazpot 7y ago
So if some Church pastor gets convicted for sexual abuse of children, Can buzzfeed publish the list of all church going members in the area with their photographs ?
- wpietri 7y ago
  If those church members, as here, received large sums of money from the pastor? Or supported him publicly? 100% yes. I think it's especially obvious with churches. When a bunch of people get together to fund and empower a guy, they share responsibility for what is done with that power. If that power is used to harm, a factual accounting of who did what seems entirely fair, as does asking them what they have to say for themselves. Your analogy isn't very good, though, because all of the people mentioned in this article are public figures. They sought out prominent roles in society. They receive significant benefits from the public, either directly or indirectly.
hos234 7y ago
This is not Journalism. Journalism is what Julie Brown did since 2008. This is just Buzzfeed being buzzfeed getting some sure shot clicks.
- 7y ago

5trokerac3 7y ago

I'm glad that this type of yellow journalism is starting to be recognized by the general populace. It's been getting worse for years. These are the same activists posing as journalists that label someone like Joe Rogan "alt-right adjacent" because he's willing to have a conversation with people right of center.

jacknews 7y ago

I agree, this witch-hunt journalism is BS. It's fine to bag politicians and 'other tycoons' who associated with him. There are legitimate concerns about influence and, you know, who else is a pedo, in those cases. But I think if I had been a scientist in need of funding, I'd gladly have taken his money, even knowing about the convictions. In fact, I'd have tried to to take as much as I possibly could, and then tell him to FO once I'd done my breakthrough study. It's different if the scientists were 'bending' their results to his benefit, but I don't think that's the case here.

basilgohar 7y ago
The awkward part of this is that it seems someone like Epstein did not do something for nothing. The suspicious aura around him means that all of these high-profile people around him may have done some kind of tit-for-tat. Yes, barring evidence, this is all very much hearsay and his untimely death closes a lot of doors to confirm these suspicions, but the amount of circumstantial evidence involving shadyvdealibgs with the guy is enough to make this kind of thing notable. And I absolutely think it matter where the money comes from, because not all money is equal. Funding agencies, grants, and other sources of money all have their own conditions, terms, and obligations. If you think Epstein's was without, then I think that is naïve.
- jacknews 7y ago
  and that's exactly what I mentioned. If the money comes with terms, or expectations of some kind of reciprocation, of course, it must be rejected. If it's just money from a bad guy that happens to be interested in AI, medicine, or whatever, and I really suspect he justified himself by funding such 'good causes' - take it all! Ruin him!
  - msghacq 7y ago
    The thing is, high profile business and science people associating and partying with Epstein didn't ruin him, it legitimized him. They didn't just take a check, they invited him into their social and business circles and he intern did the same for them. He went on to continue raping girls during this time period (after his arrest) and the legitimacy these people provided did not help one bit, they basically reintegrated him into power.