Equal Justice Requires Equal Language: Exposing the Media’s Hypocrisy on Sex-Offense Labels

In the world of public discourse, certain labels are wielded with ferocity: “pedophile,” “child molester,” “monster,” “dirtbag.” These words land on the heads of registered sex offenders, legislated out of most spaces, and publicly shamed. The narrative is straightforward: if you’re on the registry, no matter the circumstance, you’re the irredeemable villain.

But a recent commentary by Megyn Kelly, discussing Jeffrey Epstein, exposes a glaring hypocrisy in how that narrative is selectively applied. On her show, Kelly stated that Epstein was “not a pedophile” because, in her words, he preferred “very young teen types — like 15-year-olds” rather than pre-pubescent children. This article in People reports that she attributed this view to “somebody very, very close to this case… who told me … he wasn’t into, like, 8-year-olds” and “he liked the very young teen type that could pass for even younger than they were.”

But Epstein was required to register as a sex offender. No different than the rest of us. His known crimes involved the sexual abuse of minors — victims as young as 14 years old. But now, in the wake of the release of new emails tying President Trump to Epstein, when the narrative touches someone with prominence and connections, the media’s discourse subtly shifts: “not a pedophile” becomes a permissible nuance. Suddenly, the offender is “just” someone who preferred very young teens, rather than the darkest label reserved for the socially ostracized.

Contrast this with how the media routinely addresses the rest of us. All of us on the registry constantly have the label “pedophile” applied instantly, our mere presence in a public space is treated as a crisis. The public discourse is unapologetic: we are “predators” even when we are not. We are all “dangerous” – even when we are not. But suddenly, when Epstein enters the frame and we are slowly discovering ties to Donald Trump — the conversation becomes cautious. A softer label replaces the harsh one, as though proximity to power grants a different vocabulary. Well he’s “not a pedophile”.

This selective labeling isn’t merely semantic. It underpins how laws are enforced, how individuals are treated, how public empathy is distributed. For registrants with no influential friends or media platforms, the full weight of “monster” is activated. It’s a double standard. Society demands absolute condemnation of the “other”, but seems to grant the influential a chance at linguistic softening. I can’t even say ‘I don’t know about any of you’ because I do know – for a fact – that none of us got to go to a prison camp or minimum security classification because of our label. But Ghislaine Maxwell did. I can also say I know hundreds of people – thousands maybe from my 20 years of advocacy – who have offenses far less egregious than Epstein or Maxwell, but nobody other than our own mothers are saying, “well… it’s not like he’s… he shouldn’t be subject to the same restrictions…”.

For FAC’s mission — advocating for fair treatment, data-driven policy, and ending irrational social and legal ostracism — this is precisely the kind of hypocrisy that needs spotlighting.

Don’t get us wrong, we’re not suggesting that Epstein or Maxwell should be saddled with a label that according to the DSM-5-TR (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) they don’t qualify for. We are suggesting that NOBODY who doesn’t qualify for that disorder should. Similarly, unless there’s been a judicial finding that an individual poses a significant present risk of harm to the safety and welfare of the public following an individualized assessment that is based on a clinical diagnosis by an expert and utilizing structured risk-assessment instruments, not EVERYONE should be labeled as “dangerous” and forced to live 1000 feet away from a pool. Especially someone whose been living within 1000 feet of a pool for decades without incident!

In sum: the media and politicians label everyone on the registry as “monsters” without question when the narrative fits. When the narrative doesn’t fit — when the offender is powerful, tied to new revelations — a more nuanced, less moralizing term appears. That is hypocrisy.