Скачать или смотреть WHAT THE HALES: Free Speech, Satire, and the Revenge Porn Meltdown

In this explosive Unknown Podcast special report, Richard Luthmann and Michael Volpe break down the latest escalation in the Jeremy Hales saga—this time involving public accusations of “revenge porn,” threats of litigation, and a complete meltdown over satire.

The controversy erupted after a satirical video mocking YouTube litigant Jeremy Hales and his media allies was shared in a Facebook group. One participant, Megan Fox (a D-list commentator, not the actress), accused Luthmann and group moderators of committing felony “revenge porn” under New York and federal law. Her claim: that a non-explicit, fully clothed, clearly satirical image depicting her alongside Jeremy Hales constituted a criminal sexual depiction.

Volpe and Luthmann methodically dismantle that claim.

They walk through what revenge-porn statutes actually cover: real, intimate images involving nudity or explicit sexual conduct, shared without consent, typically by a former partner. They contrast that with the controlling Supreme Court precedent in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988), which squarely protects offensive parody and satire involving public figures—even when it causes emotional distress.

The discussion then widens. The hosts expose a recurring pattern: accusations of illegality used as intimidation, followed by threats of lawsuits designed to chill speech. Jeremy Hales himself enters the fray, openly declaring “SEE YOU IN COURT,” reinforcing his reputation as a serial litigant who treats lawsuits as content moderation tools.

Even more troubling, moderators sympathetic to Hales appear to endorse the accusations publicly, prompting warnings of being “added to legal complaints.” The episode highlights how quickly false legal claims spread online—and how dangerous they become when mixed with platform reporting campaigns.

Luthmann argues this is not about protecting victims, but about weaponizing the law to silence critics. Volpe adds that had the original post been ignored, it would have died instantly. Instead, threats turned it into a free-speech referendum.

The takeaway is blunt: parody is not pornography, satire is not violence, and feelings do not override the First Amendment. The episode serves as a cautionary tale about legal bullying, online mobs, and the collapse of media literacy in the age of litigation-as-content.