this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2025
846 points (99.5% liked)
Political Memes
9604 readers
2223 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Someone translate: the victims are gagged from exercising their freedom of speech? How so?
billionaire media owners will, mostly
Weren't they just aired quite publicly on the media?
Not for decades. Only very, very recently have they gotten any appreciable press because Trumps admin fucked this up so badly.
What stopped them from posting claims publicly on social media or online?
Why do you think you're hearing about it?
Because it was frequently in the press? There's no shortage of links to news reports & stories in the wikipedia articles on the victims, cases, topics.
And how did it get to the press?
Because the reporters did their job? You know these reports started before social media was mainstream, right?
So what is the point of questioning whether these women made their claims on social media or not?
You can read up, can't you? I didn't claim
So, I'm asking how that (apparent counterfactual) works. Does it withstand scrutiny?
I'm not saying you claimed anything. I'm asking what relevance there is as to whether the women made their claims on social media or not. I'm genuinely confused by the first comment of yours I replied to.
If anyone can pretty much publicize whatever they want online, then are billionaire media owners gagging their freedom of speech? I'm genuinely confused at your confusion.
The view that major, billionaire-owned journalism companies can gag anyone from exercising their freedom of speech like they're the only game in town seems outmoded when independent online media & journalism (where practically anyone can call themselves journalist) has disrupted that order since a while ago, and anyone can publish their words online in social media. That claim that may have made sense decades ago doesn't fit online media today.
All the media outlets want to hear a statement from the accomplices, for instance Trump, but they aren't talking. The victims would want to talk but aren't getting the platform they should be getting
Thanks, that's a reasonable interpretation. Then not really about the suppression of freedom of speech?
On the face no, but it is more complicated than that. It is known that the government exerts a ton of influence over media and wealthy people exert a ton of control over the government and also own all the major media outlets. It is definitely a conspiracy at this point to control the narrative.
If all of these entities were actually independent like they are supposed to be, this wouldn't be a free speech issue. Unfortunately that is not the world we are living in.
Maybe not explicitly, but pretty much every Trump supporter has told them to stfu, in so many words
Telling them to STFU obligates them not to exercise their free speech? I don't see where that gags anyone.
Again, maybe not explicitly. They're covering for pedophiles. I'm sure you're ok with that
I guarantee you missed any nuance in this comic. It's ok, adults are talking
Consequentialist fallacy: outcomes have no bearing on whether a conclusion logically follows from premises.
Circular reasoning: the outcome assumes your conclusion (that STFU can suppress freedom of speech, which is unsupported) is true.
Freedom of speech means you can tell anyone to STFU, and they're free to speak regardless.
Moreover, as widely reported in the press, the communities who promoted rightwing conspiracy theories about Jeffery Epstein (extracted from more general conspiracy theories that a shadowy cabal of deep state elites runs pedophile rings to harvest adrenochrome) are the Trump voters. They're the Trump supporters with a longer record than anyone of pushing for the release of those files. Top officials like Kash Patel & Dan Bondingo sprang right out of that community.
Condescension, and we should expect adults to respect logic. Are you an adult? If so, that's unfortunate.
You need a foundation in what freedom of speech is and then pair that with the complicated reality we are facing. Your definition of freedom of speech is nonsensical at best.
Define freedom of speech. This is not a hard question.
Freedom of speech refers to government action in public space to suppress speech it does not agree with.
For instance, in our colleges there was some pro-palestine demonstrations. In Florida the government issued a decree to disband SJC. This is classic suppression of free speech because it involves a government action in a public space.
Because we live in a fascist oligarchy though it becomes complicated because corporations simultaneously are controlled and control the government. This merger of the state and corporations complicates the simple definition of freedom of speech.
It's freedom from legal (or government) sanction, censorship, or retaliation for expressing opinions or ideas.
That's a stretch. Where was that government control of private companies during the Biden administration or previous administrations dating back to the beginning of the Epstein crimes? Is the government controlling MSNBC, New York Times, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS? Private companies aren't legal authorities, and they aren't legally obligated to repeat or broadcast anyone's speech: that's how social media nowadays defends deplatforming. Would your claim mean that deplatforming suppresses free speech?
Trump supporters saying STFU doesn't amount to legal sanctions. I've only seen the Trump administration evade, deny, or deflect. Where are the legal sanctions suppressing the speech of Epstein victims?
The government exerts influence through subversive means pretty regularly. It is common for them to do things like have people or organizations cut off from the financial system. This is not always done through legal channels but the results are the same.
If MasterCard or Visa stop doing business with you it is their right. But what if the government asked them to without a court order. This is a real life scenario that happens.
We can also see this with our current news reporting where the government excerpts control over the media and the media follows without court orders.
Is deplatforming against free speech? Well if it is influenced by the government then I think you could argue it is. If Trump makes a vague threat like X company is making the hugest mistake by supporting Y and then their platform voluntarily changes their stance or removes speech, that could also be interpreted as suppression.
There is no smoking gun though or legal order people might say. I think if the results are the same it doesn't matter.
Is the government controlling media? I think the answer is most certainly yes. Would you argue the government is not currently using its massive influence to control the media. We have always had an illusion of independent media. The problem is all media is controlled by a handful of wealthy individuals that are influenced and influence the government.
If we did have independent diverse media why do they all repeat the exact same talking points? I am sorry, but I am not naive enough to believe any of that nonsense. This is not new, the capture of the media world happened a long time ago, but a recent critique that was meaningful was found in Goodnight and Good luck.
The US has always had major issues with government propaganda. The entire system is propped up on lies stacked upon lies. A great example of this was after 9/11 when the government used propaganda and islamophobia to attack Iraq.
The media quickly fell inline following the governments direction and stopping critical analysis of what was happening. Having lived through this the effect on the media was obvious and chilling. Criticism of the President and their actions was all but silenced.
We can easily determine the government can exert influence without legal orders so your questions about where are the legal sanctions is either naive or disingenuous.
Lastly, I am not here to argue that saying STFU is suppression of free speech. This in itself is propaganda used to distract. It is a stupid reframing of what is really going on.
You can say whatever you like, but someone can sue you for any reason at all. Even a completely baseless lawsuit can ruin someone who doesn't already have millions of dollars.
Usually a news organization will guarantee that their lawyers will defend the people they interview in court to encourage them to speak. The same organizations that made millions from increased viewership because they gave Trump hundreds of hours of free screen time beginning from before his first election aren't interested in putting any of that money to work to get out the truth.
That's always been the case. That doesn't mean the suer will prevail. I'm pretty sure there are motions (especially with anti-SLAPP laws) defendants can file to recover all fees of baseless lawsuits.
I'm not sure how you plausibly get that interpretation from the comic: nothing about lawsuits or disparity in economic power is indicated. This other reading of the comic seems more plausible.