This is a follow up post to, “A Response To Greg Grandin’s Chomsky-Epstein Article” published on Feb 6, 2026.

Valeria Chomsky’s statement on the Chomsky Epstein saga is out, and should confirm what any rational person should have known. The Chomskys did not know about Epstein’s horrific crimes until after his arrest, and when they did realize the magnitude of the crimes, they were as horrified as any of us. The Chomskys were responsible for poor judgment, and apologized for it. 

A few additional points are worth bringing up. The Chomskys were not uniquely responsible for poor judgment. The entire scientific community that Chomsky was a part of trusted Epstein, as this email from Chomsky in 2023 makes clear. 

Given these clarifications, all the takes about Chomsky-Epstein, including Grandin’s addendum, appear in particularly bad faith now. No one accounted for the possibility that Chomsky simply did not know about Epstein’s crimes at the time of his relationship with Epstein, and changed his mind as soon as he did know. Every single take was written as though Chomsky’s emails were written in public with no subsequent retraction. 

Issues and knowledge often take time to crystallize. We know this in other cases. Not all Palestine activists concluded that what was happening in Gaza was a genocide at the same instant. The consciousness over genocide developed over a fairly long period of time. Would we really want a culture where those who came to the realization sooner start shaming those who came to the realization later, and that too based on what they say in private? 

There is also more to say on the broader topic of civil liberties. It is worth re-reading Chomsky’s comments on the Faurisson affair: “it is a truism, hardly deserving discussion, that the defense of the right of free expression is not restricted to ideas one approves of, and that it is precisely in the case of ideas found most offensive that these rights must be most vigorously defended.” In my view, a similar logic holds for due process and civil liberties more broadly. They must be defended even when we are discussing horrific crimes like pedophilia. If we let the horror of the crimes allow us to play fast and loose with civil liberties, then it just opens the door for eroding civil liberties broadly, for the rest of us. 

At the very least, this requires us to separate a defence of due process and civil liberties from a defence of the underlying crimes. To his credit, Grandin recognizes this elementary point in at least one place in his article by noting that “Chomsky doesn’t deny Epstein’s crimes, defend Epstein’s actions, or argue that they are exaggerated.” The point is more general. The ACLU is

known to have defended the free speech rights of groups advocating pedophelia in the abstract. This would almost certainly have consisted of the ACLU advising said groups about how to present themselves, if needed, even in the public. In other words, the ACLU probably provided PR advice to monsters. But it doesn’t follow that the ACLU is endorsing them. 

The process of eroding civil liberties in the context of the Epstein issue is happening right now. We see it with the cavalier attitude with which privacy is being treated when scouring the Epstein files. For instance, an otherwise careful (and excellent) commentator like Adam Johnson tweets that: “The thing is I’m sensitive to the potential that incidental or tangential contact with Epstein can unduly smear people’s names but the reality is this… hasn’t happened. And the newsworthiness of his friendly chit chats with Musk, Gates, Chomsky etc far outweighed this risk” Thus, for instance, it is apparently acceptable to breach details of Chomsky’s financial dispute with his children. The premise of the tweet is illuminating. Apparently, one may have an expectation of privacy, but if the person one is communicating with is convicted of a criminal offence in the future, then all bets are off. 

Incidentally, I can cook up lots of reasons why scouring Adam Johnson’s private emails (and that of other commentators) might be of public interest. I’d like to learn more about how sexism and racism underpin the private lives of leftists, and also whether the way they raise their children is aligned with progressive values. I wonder how Johnson feels about that. 

The point of this is not to argue against the “Epstein Transparency Act”. There may well be reasons that justify the privacy breach. But it is important to acknowledge that the breach is real. Having a cavalier attitude about it and the broader attempt to pursue guilt by association indicates that there is clearly a massive need for basic education of elementary civil liberties within the left. Chomsky was wrong in one respect in his note on Faurisson – he lamented the authoritarianism of French intellectuals. American intellectuals in 2026 are not much better. 

It is undeniable that Chomsky’s email merits criticism, and Valeria Chomsky’s note is correct to strike an apologetic tone. But there never was and isn’t any justification for the blood-lust and viciousness of the attacks on Chomsky, often by alleged leftists. I hope they take a good look at themselves.