804
Nearly 200 names linked to Jeffrey Epstein expected to be made public
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2024
804 points (98.8% liked)
News
23311 readers
1383 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Oh. I see your concern. A bit of a leap, since dozens doesn't really have an upper limit, and it could be including the already confirmed names released, and it wouldn't make much sense for him to write down the names of his victims, much less their current addresses
And there are lots of groups concerned and acting on part of Epstein's victims, so they aren't so forgotten or defenseless as you might be worried about.
I'd also rather the police released the name of a hypothetical victim to catch a rapist than to leave the rapist at a large out of concern, endangering catalyst others, for a modicum of privacy for one victim.
As I understand it, these aren't just names he'd (or Maxwell) wrote down or otherwise recorded, these are names linked to him through various sources. Some of his victims might not even know they're on that list (if they even are). Not all victims voluntarily come forward and suddenly being named like this might be a massive shock. Just because you're OK with a victim being named, doesn't mean they are. They've already gone through at least one violation.
I'm all for catching rapists and abusers, but there must be ways of handling this that don't involve just info dumping loads of names to the general public. At the very least, shouldn't they be released to some sort of authority that can investigate and sift out potential victims before they're plastered everywhere?
You're piling fear-based assumption on top of assumption.
Your point is that if something bad you're imagining happens, bad things might happen?
What a deduction. Good thing you spread that out over several paragraphs.
No, I don't think we should further procrastinate pursuing an alreadt delayed critically important investigation out of respect for hypothetical, indirect risks.
From the article you clearly haven't read;
I realise that, to you, it's much more important to gloat over the names of people you don't like you hope are on there. My perspective is that, if there are indeed names of victims amongst these 200 names as seems at the very least a distinct possibility, in order to prevent them being re-victimised , it might be better to take the time to do everything that can be done to stop that happening because, I assure you, to a rape or abuse victim, the risks are neither hypothetical or indirect.
Pull as many false claims from the air as you want, equating the hypothetical disclosure of names with actual rape is wildly irresponsible equivocation and is not a good reason to protect rapists.
Which is all you're advocating for.
Yeah, just me and a well respected national newspaper.
Who on earth is talking about protecting rapists? The other names are still going to be on there so you can have your little moment of glee seeing all those people you hate named and shamed.
You're not interested in the rights of victims whatsoever - you're one of those people who loves to air their righteous indignation as publicly as possible, never giving a thought to the fact there's actual people, actual victims who this man and his friends raped and abused and just possibly it might be an idea, to prevent them having to relive that trauma, to ensure that their names don't become fodder to every internet mob and tabloid editor in the world.
Wow, you projecting that hard is going to burn-in your screen, be careful.