I agree that the lede was false, and it's good that it was changed. Not that the "corrected" version of "defend[ing] a university official who anonymously accep

I agree that the lede was false, and it's good that it was changed. Not that the "corrected" version of "defend[ing] a university official who anonymously accepted donations from convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein" makes Lessig look much better. As for the headline: "If You Take Epstein’s Money, Do It in Secret" -- Lessig literally says (https://web.archive.org/web/20190914091011/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/business/lessig-epstein-ito-mit.html https://web.archive.org/web/20190914091011/https://www.nytim...) the following: "if the institution says it’s going to take this money, then at the very least it should not be offering the gift of reputation laundering for those who give it" (emphasis in the original). I don't think it's a very big stretch to summarize that as "If You Take Epstein’s Money, Do It in Secret". There is some context: The quote above is preceded by "No. My preference is that none of this money should be in institutions, but". But still... he said it. He could have left it at "Do you think it’s O.K. if this is kept secret?" -- "No.", and he didn't. He could have argued that the money should be passed along to a charity or whatever, and he didn't. He chose to say what he said. I hate clickbait and I respect Lessig in general, but in this instance he did indeed say what the NYT alleges that he said. And it was a dumb thing to say.