Epstein was a disgusting piece of filth. Maxwell was clearly a callous collaborator.
Andrew is rightly in the doghouse, and it's a good thing that Mandelson is under criminal investigation.
But as cathartic, reassuring, fun, prurient, whatever it is, to read summaries of the salacious details of the released emails... Is it really a good thing? Should anyone who ever had contact with Jeffrey really be subject to trial-by-tabloid?
If we were to have sudden access to everyone's emails, there would likely be much wrongdoing exposed, many crimes subject to investigation and morality questioned. Many people on this forum would be "outed" to colleagues, family and friends. Let's say that there was an account on here that turned out to be Epstein/Maxwell related. Imagine if all correspondence (with identifiable recipients) was likewise published - would that be okay?
Where is the line between public interest and the need for privacy? Should law enforcement or the media have much more access than they already do? What makes, for example, embarrassing details of Bill Gates fair game for the media, simply because he is mentioned in emails with Epstein?
Critically, is this unprecedented release the harbinger of more such releases? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 Drawing a line between safety and privacy has always been a moral/political minefield. We could potentially bring crime rates close to 0 if the government puts up cameras and listeners everywhere, even inside your homes. A sci-fi version of this would be the police fixing chips in our brains to read our thoughts, thereby eradication crime completely.
Is that a compromise that people are willing to make for the sake of safety? I don't think so. We all want some privacy.
Now what about crimes which have happened? Having information accessible is necessary to validate that the justice system works fairly. But there must be safeguards to ensure privacy of people who didn't commit the crime.
The Epstein files situation is out of ordinary for two reasons - People involved are politicians and celebs. We usually justify invading their privacy by saying that they chose a public life and that comes with public scrutiny. The other problem is the sheer volume of information that makes it impossible to hide everything that would expose someone, especially when people call all the redactions as cover-ups. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
  When you enter politics, you kind of throw away any right to a quiet family life.
If a bunch of dick heads can shout abuse at Farage when he goes out with his family, then the emails of a bunch of elitist sex pests can be shared. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Â
"When you enter politics, you kind of throw away any right to a quiet family life.
If a bunch of dick heads can shout abuse at Farage when he goes out with his family, then the emails of a bunch of elitist sex pests can be shared."
Not everyone is a politician or, indeed, elite. Where does one draw the line? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
     |
By (user no longer on site)Â 13 weeks ago
|
I think you are right OP, these emails probably shouldn't have been made public. A lot of the pressure seemed to come from people who thought they would implicate Trump, which they don't in anything illegal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
