I know people hate Citizens United, but to me, if the debate on this is ever to progress: what's the alternative? Say I and a bunch of my friends donate money to promote some cause; let's say "Black Lives Matter", for the sake of argument. Is that also off the table? Is there to be no ability for people to associate & collectively argue for change (e.g., by buying an ad to raise awareness)?
Or, is it fine when I do it, but not when others do it? Where do I draw the line, between what association for the purposes of political advocacy is fine, and what association isn't fine?
Campaign finance laws were set up tell you where the line is. There needs to be a line because the amount of reach you have should not grow with your wealth. But Citizens United made the money as speech an unlimited right. Spending $250 is a completely different category than spending $250 million.
"Some argue this blurriness unfairly implicates those who were simply mentioned in the files. I take the opposite view: It unfairly protects those who abused minors." This seems like a weird distinction to make, and the fact that he sees these as being in conflict kind of ruins the article for me. For instance Ro Khanna revealed six names of people in the Epstein files but then it turned out four of them had just had their photos used in a photo lineup and had no other connection (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/13/four-men-unr...) so obviously yes, there are some perfectly innocent people in the files. Then later in the article he says "There’s a solution to the Epstein problem, and it’s called a perp walk. It doesn’t matter what we get them for, but someone very rich and very famous needs to be seen in handcuffs. It could be Gates, it could be Dershowitz, it could be Clinton, it could be Summers, I don’t really care." Which once again is missing the point, assuming that anyone mentioned there is guilty and worthy of punishment of a public shaming. And while honestly I wouldn't be upset if any of these famous men were shamed that way, the fact remains that's not how justice works. He sees a problem, a lack of justice for these crimes and then instead of coming to the solution as being that we need justice, which includes trials and the presumption of innocence, that we just need to start punishing at random. That not only is a failure of justice, but it also isn't a good deterrent and I think will ultimately fail to accomplish his goals.
Isn’t it amazing how the conspiracy of “elites running a pedophile ring and controlling the world” was all the rage not that long ago?
Yet now that we have actual documents that say exactly that, somehow it becomes stupid to talk about it, because it turns out that your team was behind it the whole time? Can’t we all just move on already?
We live in an era where the Western social contract is breaking down and the wealthy collect more money and power to themselves than ever before. We should care about Epstein and consequences for illegal activities done by the rich and famous. Justice must be seen to be done. We need it for social cohesion.
I both agree with the sentiment, and believe it won't happen because the USA is past the point of no return.
I mean this with no direspect or cynisism, and hope I'm wrong, but I think that country has rotted too much for saving. You let it go too far for too long.
Then again the UK (repeatedly) went through some very dark times, and whilst not exactly a bastion of justice, we're doing a lot better now.
Correct me if I'm on a limb here, but didn't the UK truly embrace stupid, only after it lost its Empire status? While the US does it at its peak, which seems much more dangerous for, well everybody actually.
Yes, the rich and powerful have increasingly captured and profited from the police and carceral state while being completely free to, for instance, build an island dedicated to the rape of children. Justice should absolutely be served here. Arrest more rich people, arrest more politicians, and hell arrest all of the "royalty" (for this and other reasons).
But this rant's "solution", which seems to be "let's empower the police state to do more excesses" - yeah, no. Maybe let's just ensure that everyone gets the same due process?
Readit News
"That government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich shall not perish from the earth."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
Or, is it fine when I do it, but not when others do it? Where do I draw the line, between what association for the purposes of political advocacy is fine, and what association isn't fine?
This isn't some hypothetical world. We had it.
I'd say AI is the new AI.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/03/iran-war-...
Yet now that we have actual documents that say exactly that, somehow it becomes stupid to talk about it, because it turns out that your team was behind it the whole time? Can’t we all just move on already?
I mean this with no direspect or cynisism, and hope I'm wrong, but I think that country has rotted too much for saving. You let it go too far for too long.
Then again the UK (repeatedly) went through some very dark times, and whilst not exactly a bastion of justice, we're doing a lot better now.
But this rant's "solution", which seems to be "let's empower the police state to do more excesses" - yeah, no. Maybe let's just ensure that everyone gets the same due process?
What led you to believe this is the solution presented in the article? Much less try to pass those statements off as quoting or paraphrasing.
> Maybe let's just ensure that everyone gets the same due process?
That is the actual solution presented in the last two sections of the article.
Baseless speculation.
Dead Comment