Skip Navigation

User banner
InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)L
Posts
0
Comments
486
Joined
9 mo. ago

  • It's freedom from legal (or government) sanction, censorship, or retaliation for expressing opinions or ideas.

    Because we live in a fascist oligarchy

    corporations simultaneously are controlled and control the government

    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?

  • 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.

  • someone can also sue you for any reason at all

    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.

  • Define freedom of speech. This is not a hard question.

  • You can read up, can't you? I didn't claim

    billionaire media owners will [gag victims from exercising their freedom of speech], mostly

    So, I'm asking how that (apparent counterfactual) works. Does it withstand scrutiny?

  • Because the reporters did their job? You know these reports started before social media was mainstream, right?

  • 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.

  • Thanks, that's a reasonable interpretation. Then not really about the suppression of freedom of speech?

  • What stopped them from posting claims publicly on social media or online?

  • They’re covering for pedophiles. I’m sure you’re ok with that

    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.

    It’s ok, adults are talking

    Condescension, and we should expect adults to respect logic. Are you an adult? If so, that's unfortunate.

  • Telling them to STFU obligates them not to exercise their free speech? I don't see where that gags anyone.

  • Weren't they just aired quite publicly on the media?

  • Someone translate: the victims are gagged from exercising their freedom of speech? How so?

  • The MAGA DOJ drafting policies in language reminiscent of the 3ʳᵈ reich is so on brand.

  • A link to source or some alt text would be cool: this image lacks both.

  • That's assuming a blackmail list or compendium of damning documents shielded from public disclosure by an insidious "Deep State" isn't an element of grander Qanon conspiracy theories that a shadowy cabal of deep state elites runs pedophile rings to extract adrenochrome. Or that we aren't talking about this now because Trump played up conspiracy theories to win the following of useful idiots who subscribe to them.

    The press had reported for years on right-wing crackpots "doing their own research" & pulling wild shit out of nowhere. It's possible for a right-wing crackpot to pull an idea out their ass that happens to be true. It's also possible that unicorns exist on some planet in the universe.

    Not sure why anyone outside those crackpot communities should feel convinced, though.

  • We swim in the ocean, and that has everything.

  • Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said the CIA, FBI and the Justice Department “holds the truth” on Jeffrey Epstein as she vowed to reveal “every damn name” of the purported high-powered clients of the late financier’s underage sex trafficking operation.

    Is the claim falsifiable?

    Believers claim a blackmail list or compendium of damning documents has been shielded from public disclosure by an insidious "Deep State". The press has long reported there is no credible sign of that & Trump played up conspiracy theories to win the following of useful idiots who subscribe to them.

    What kind of evidence would a believer accept if the truth isn't exactly as they believe?