The Fetish of Selective Privacy
The media class is currently clutching its collective pearls over Todd Blanche’s assessment that the unsealing of the Jeffrey Epstein documents was "horrible" for the victims. It’s a convenient narrative. It’s also a lie.
Blanche’s objection—centered on the idea that publicizing these names inflicts a second wave of trauma—is the textbook definition of a "lazy consensus." It positions silence as a form of protection. In reality, silence is the very mechanism that allowed the Epstein enterprise to thrive for decades. When we prioritize the comfort of the survivors by keeping the machinery of their abuse in the shadows, we aren't protecting them. We are protecting the next generation of predators by maintaining the infrastructure of secrecy.
True justice isn't a quiet room and a nondisclosure agreement. True justice is loud, messy, and uncompromisingly public.
The False Dichotomy of Victimhood
The legal world loves to talk about "victim-centered" approaches. Usually, that’s just code for avoiding accountability for powerful institutions. By framing the document release as a tragedy for the survivors, critics are using the victims as a human shield to deflect from the real issue: the systemic failure of our legal and political systems to provide transparency.
Let’s dismantle the logic. If the names remained sealed, the victims would still be victims. Their trauma doesn't vanish because a court file stays locked in a basement in Lower Manhattan. The difference is that with the files sealed, the public remains ignorant of the enablers, the financiers, and the "blind-eye" bureaucrats who signed the checks.
When a defense attorney calls a public disclosure "horrible," they are prioritizing the aesthetic of privacy over the substance of accountability. They are arguing that the public's right to know how its elites operate is secondary to a manufactured sense of decorum.
Transparency is the Only Antiseptic
I have sat in courtrooms where "privacy" was used as a cudgel to keep corporate malfeasance off the front page. I have seen billion-dollar settlements signed with "gag orders" that effectively bought a victim’s silence while allowing the perpetrator to move to a different state and start again.
The Epstein case is the ultimate stress test for this philosophy.
- The Power of Association: Who flew on the planes? Who stayed at the ranch? These aren't just gossip points; they are data points in a map of influence.
- The Myth of Collateral Damage: Critics argue that "innocent" people mentioned in the files are being smeared. This is a risk of any public proceeding. The alternative—a secret court system—is far more dangerous to a free society.
- The Deterrence Factor: If you know that your association with a predator will eventually be indexed by Google for the rest of eternity, you might think twice about accepting that weekend invite to a private island.
Why We Ask the Wrong Questions
Most people are asking, "Was this release fair to the victims?"
That is the wrong question.
The right question is: "Why were these documents ever secret to begin with?"
We have been conditioned to believe that the legal system is a black box where justice is processed behind closed doors. We’ve been told that transparency is a "violation." This is an inversion of democratic principles. In a healthy society, the default state of a court record is public. Secrecy should be the rare, heavily scrutinized exception—not the standard operating procedure for the rich and powerful.
The Brutal Honesty of Public Record
Let’s be honest about the downside. Yes, being named in these documents is grueling. Yes, the internet is a pit of vultures that will misinterpret, decontextualize, and weaponize every line of text.
But the alternative is a society where the truth is a luxury item, purchased by those with the best lawyers and the most to hide.
Blanche and his ilk are mourning the death of a certain kind of legal "gentleman’s agreement." They are mourning the era where a phone call between powerful men could bury a scandal. That era didn't protect victims; it protected the status quo.
The release of these documents wasn't "horrible." It was an overdue audit of an entire ecosystem of corruption. If the cost of that audit is a loss of comfort, then that is a price we must be willing to pay.
Stop asking for "privacy" when you really mean "immunity."
Burn the files, or open the doors. There is no middle ground.
