• matlag@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I use to say “all extremes call for their opposite”. Since almost no information ever transpires about this whole scandal, the opposite is to release all the names to the public. It was to be expected. If we were trusting the justice system, this would seem inappropriate. But we have what we have, and making the whole list public is the only guarantee we have that not one of the “bad” guy can escape public’s attention. That of course, is valid only if the list is comprehensive and some names have not already been taken out.

    It is indeed unfortunate that a lot of people who didn’t deserve and didn’t want any bad attention will get some.

    I’m not saying I agree with the move. I’m saying it was to be expected.

    [Edit made: grammar & missing words]

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      making the whole list public is the only guarantee we have that not one of the “bad” guy can escape public’s attention.

      Problem is that we don’t know if this is the case. It was noted in the article that some people were able to get their names retracted already and that she is leaving time for other people to plead their case. We all know, and this part of the reason for lack of trust in the legal system, that it favors the rich…so for all I know it’s rich likely guilty people who were able to pay for a lawyer to argue to get themselves removed, while some poor regular joe got caught up in an email for God knows what innocent reason, who is going to get harassed by the mindless mob.

      Expected? Maybe. A bad move, almost certainly. People want blood when it comes to Epstein and when that happens rationality takes a back seat.