archive article: https://archive.is/vpCD7

The Trump administration’s final tranche of Epstein files released to the public included dozens of unredacted nude images and photographs of young women’s faces, according to The New York Times.

  • Etterra@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    The Whitehouse more had the same pinky-promise token age verification of every other porn site and I’m just too goddamn tired to be surprised.

  • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    2 days ago

    Of course they’re releasing unredacted compromising photographs of the victims. One of the traffickera’ personal lawyer is overseeing the process so as to ensure as much harm as possible

    • kreskin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      18 hours ago

      yeah… thats the twist in the story, they redacted the faces of the abusers but not the victims. So their story that they needed to do redactions to protect the victims was just proven to be complete horseshite.

  • Kronusdark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    137
    ·
    2 days ago

    This is a trap, it will be used as an attempt to say that full release of the files on the schedule demanded by law is impossible.

    • jve@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      It’s a trap to get CSAM on the computers of those doing the good work of ensuring that everything they post gets archived.

    • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      It’s also another criminal infraction of the law created to release them, which stated explicitly that the victims, and only the victims, should be censored. They’re censoring the accused and exposing the victims. Violating the law with knowing intent with the clear goal of asserting immunity to law.

    • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      2 days ago

      You can’t go after the shitheads when you can’t show the pictures. Of course, outlets can absolutely put black bars over the victims. I think it’s trap as well as trying to shame and punish the victims for coming forward.

  • Dearth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    2 days ago

    They’ll redact Melania’s face, black out bibi’s email and pictures of infant corpses next to raw chicken. But yaaaaaa go ahead and publish the faces of the exploited children.

    Honestly i wouldn’t be surprised if they include actual CP

  • Cruxifux@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    2 days ago

    Imagine being one of the thousands of FBI agents who’s job right now is “do anything you can to protect the pedophile cabal.”

    • ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      It seems very much on-brand for this admin to pull a stunt like that.

      I doubt it would work. No court in the world would see that case through.

      But it just takes ONE story being blown up by media to make millions of paranoid, tuned-out people scared to even touch the Epstein files, much less look at them for actual evidence and data.

  • altphoto@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    Is anyone somewhere saying… “Hey that’s me!” Who could then come forward and help America prove anything about those nude photos?

    • OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Victims have already come forward. They have been for years. Their testimonies are ignored, hidden, and they are threatened to keep quiet.

      • altphoto@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Yes but publicly and specifically hold up evidence they already know about which would be convincing? Obviously we know, but convincing in court such that it could then be used in a real court, not one that would ignore them.