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.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is amusing to see the spin. Oh, NOW they have to use the proper definition of pedophile now that their favored politician is accused of being one?
But seriously, they never gave a rip about having these discussions up until now. They created a monster and now the monster they created has turned on them. I don’t feel for these politicians. I’m just enjoying the show and since I live in Nebraska, there’s plenty of popcorn to grab for the fireworks.
“Hebephilia is a sexual attraction to early-to-mid pubescent youths, typically in the age range of 11 to 14 years” is what she means as it was related to her. There three types in the end. Just one though is broad brushed against everyone with a sex crime conviction regardless.
Ephebophilia: A sexual attraction to mid-to-late adolescents, typically aged 15 to 19 years old (often up to the legal age of consent).
This kind of hits home for me because I had just turned 20 and had a girlfriend who was 1 month from her 16th birthday and I got hit. That was almost 20 years ago. The very few friends I have today look at my situation as ridiculous, I’m thankful for the few buddies I have that don’t look at me as a “monster”
Everything is backwards and upside down now.
The irredeemables are those committing these egregious spiritually depraved acts on the group that has been chosen as a tool of destruction of the Constitution, forcing their will on everyone else for their own benefit.
I follow Brianna Ladapo in Substack and receive her article emails. She is the wife of our Florida Surgeon General who is also courageous and honest. I highly recommend everyone follow her because this woman possesses spiritual intelligence and wisdom. She recently wrote a very good article that is directly relative to this FAC posting that I am sharing here.👇🏼
“Few citizens seem to value honesty for honesty’s sake anymore, and it has become far too acceptable—whether you’re a leader of industry, a dogcatcher, a politician, or a priest—to spin, obfuscate, or outright ignore the truth for one’s own benefit. Even worse, dishonesty has become so commonplace that even those who still value their integrity seldom expect it from others.”
Full article:
https://open.substack.com/pub/briannaladapo/p/integrity-and-vulnerability-as-the?r=4aqu41&utm_medium=ios
Thanks for this important set of distinctions, which can be applied to a number of Epstein associates as well as certain lucky ‘in the know’ persons. I have also done a video on this same topic on my YT channel, I.C.A.C. – UNPACKED!, where I frequently give a shout out to FAC for fighting for a better life, a better way for us all.
@Norman
Subbed to your YT. Godspeed sir.
Thank you!
I am currently being attacked by eric J. Lind with Alicia’ s Project, another troll identified only as JVTrace, and, just today, the guy who runs NetPredators. It’s a bit much — all to try and uncover what does not exist.
who/what is Alicia’s project and how are they attacking you?
Did you check out my channel, PFR Nomore? I explain it there in the Posts section.
Alicia’s Project (AP), in brief, is a John Walsh-esque org that seeks to monetize its namesake under the guise of protecting children. Alicia Kozuk (short for her Polish name) was a young, lonely PA girl of 14 when she went online and met an older man in his 40s near Herndon, VA. She traveled to meet her, caged her unwillingly, and did unspeakable things to her. She escaped, and later founded the Project. AP does talks in professional orgs and in schools warning about ‘terrible people’ like us, about the dangers of the internet social media sites, and more. Relevantly for me, AP gives money to the already bloated Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force, which run the illegal, immoral, and unethical ‘proactive’ sex stings which netted me and thousands of others. It’s on the same wavelength as Net Nanny out west.
Alicia’s current boyfriend and producer, Eric J. Lind, and I communicated in 2022 because I wanted them to know what ICAC was doing and thought he might be interested and perhaps curb funding. He was only interested in potential liability for AP and quickly discounted my story and that of many of us. Little did I know, he then embarked on a campaign to stalk and discredit my account of what happened to me, resulting on Aug. 20 in the VA State Patrol kicking in my door in the early AM and seizing my devices, though they could determined that Lind’s ‘tip’ to them was bogus. After 13 weeks, I have not been charged, and I am seeking legal remedy for stalking/harassment/defamation before the statute of limitations (1 year) runs out.
I didnt, just because im not a big “YouTube” person.
Thats such a wild story. How were you able to find out this person was the one that reported you? What did he say you did?
Well, big youtuber or not, I explain it and other items there. I felt compelled to start a site to fight back using what limited clout and resources we all have.
And, if you think that’s ‘wild,’ you should try reading my book when I finish and release it.
Eric Lind is listed in the police affidavit for their warrant. The affidavit also notes that Mr. Lind has provided them with ‘accurate’ information at an earlier time, likely four years ago – the last time they tried this nonsense. And, ‘accurate’ is a misnomer as the court dismissed it, but they needed to convince the magistrate to allow a home search warrant, since they had nothing else to go on. Now, maybe you see why I want to sue him for harassment and more.
I’m having a bit of trouble following you, what exactly did he accuse you of?? Police said it wasn’t true and then searched your home anyways?
Let’s avoid soliciting peoples’ personal background information.
Yes, yes, yes! Let’s look at the DATA. Let’s be data driven!! Show us the facts!