Avoiding a witch hunt in the Jeffrey Epstein ‘associates’ list aftermath | Opinion
The Miami Herald’s efforts to unseal court records and investigate Jeffrey Epstein are highly commendable. We must investigate everyone involved in the heinous Jeffrey Epstein sexual abuse ring. Sifting through the evidence to identify and bring to justice individuals like Ghislaine Maxwell, and others who participated in or enabled these crimes, is both a moral and legal necessity. Period.
However, a troubling trend has emerged with media outlets’ widespread publication of names based on mere association with Epstein, without evidence of involvement in his crimes. Numerous sensational clickbait headlines focus on this list with language like: “unsealed names,” “biggest names,” “A-listers named” and “court releases names,” implying guilt by mere mention.
There is no actual list but some media outlets are portraying documents from a court case against Ghislaine Maxwell as a “list” of Jeffrey Epstein’s clients or co-conspirators. In reality, these documents, which reference around 150 of Epstein’s associates including Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, do not imply wrongdoing by all mentioned nor serve as a “client list,” but rather provide insight into Epstein’s vast social network.
The fear of automatic guilt via association with being on this list has gotten so bad that Jimmy Kimmel threatened to sue NFL quarterback Aaron Rogers for merely suggesting he could be on this list. Whoopi Goldberg even had to publicly address her name appearing on a falsified list of celebrities associated with Epstein’s island. This fear of guilt by association is reaching alarming levels.
This sensationalist rush to judgment raises serious ethical concern. Alan Dershowitz was besmirched for being Epstein’s lawyer. Numerous articles reference him on the current list, not always pointing out that his accuser later said she may have made a mistake and dropped her allegations.
This all echoes a frightening historical pattern that only leads to injustices. The McCarthy era of the 1950s, marred by a frantic, paranoid crusade against communists and their sympathizers in the United States, is a prime example. That witch hunt was based on the flimsiest connections to communism. It resulted in the Hollywood blacklist, destroying careers and irreversibly altering lives through unverified, associative accusations.
The internment of over 125,000 Japanese Americans during World War II is another glaring example. Individuals were imprisoned not because of any evidence of disloyalty but merely because of their familial or ethnic associations to Japan. It was a collective judgment based on race and heritage.
In the tragic chapter of the Salem witch trials of the Middle Ages, mere proximity to the accused could lead to charges of witchcraft, trials and even executions. It was a period where hysteria and ungrounded claims overshadowed reason and justice.
We also see this in contemporary scenarios like Harvey Weinstein’s former wife being implicated his despicable crimes or the backlash against “Harry Potter” actors for J.K. Rowling’s comments on gender identity, despite their differing views..
While pursuing truth and justice for Epstein’s victims is crucial, presuming guilt by association undermines this goal. It misdirects focus and resources, potentially allowing real perpetrators to evade justice.
This rush to judgment not only erodes public trust in the justice system and the media but also creates a chilling effect on social interactions. Individuals become cautious of their associations, fearing public backlash for connections to potentially controversial figures.
We must embrace an approach that diligently pursues facts, holding the guilty accountable without succumbing to collective condemnation. It’s a path that requires critical thinking and a steadfast commitment to fairness — a path that ensures justice is served without compromising our principles.
Eli Federman has written for the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Time and others.
