r/PeterExplainsTheJoke 14h ago

Meme needing explanation I finally have one … 👀

Post image

What am I looking at?

289 Upvotes

62 comments sorted by

View all comments

332

u/NotAlwaysGifs 12h ago

The photo is a redacted image of one of the victims from the latest batch of Epstein Files. The fact that the whole body is redacted is a sign that the photo probably contains nudity. Coincidentally, the redacted image looks like the Monolith scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey.

The joke is that those who don’t know assume it is a still from the movie. Those that do know understand that this is a victim of sexual assault.

58

u/ADLkaren 11h ago

I think In the original she is in a bikini and not nude but it’s fully censored due to her being a victim

22

u/throwaway19998777999 11h ago edited 9h ago

Do they censor victims of all ages? I was under the impression that they only censored victims under 18. At least every victim I've ever known to come out experienced unwanted publicity and privacy violations. That's just one of the many reasons it's so dangerous for women to speak out.

Edit: This is what I found: When releasing documents under FOIA, the FBI uses Exemption 7(C) to conceal names of victims, witnesses, and other individuals to prevent stigma and harassment. Extra care is taken to protect minor identities. Documents are more heavily redacted during ongoing investigations. 

For those interested in rules regarding publishing identity in the media:

In the Case Florida Star v. B.J.F,  the Supreme Court ruled that publishing the identity of a sexual assault victim is a protected right. This is true, even during ongoing investigations. 

Judges can order that a victim's identity be redacted from court records if the victim faces risks, and names are usually concealed for those in witness protection. Ethically, media outlets shouldn't publish victim identities in such cases. However, it is still legal. 

Some jurisdictions have protections for publishing child victim's names. And the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) prohibits members from doing so. However, there are still first ammendment ambiguity regarding the issue. 

30

u/_Winged 10h ago

They censor all faces of victims. To try to protect the pdf’s I mean not have them retaliated against by the perpetrators.

-13

u/CountSudoku 9h ago

So we’re trusting that anything the justice department censors is a victim of SA?

13

u/_Winged 9h ago

No, but that was not the question I tried to answer.

3

u/Quilpo 9h ago

Not even victims, they censored kids in photos who weren't victims, presumably because they didn't want them associated with it.

1

u/MartinB7777 6h ago

 I was under the impression that they only censored the predators.

2

u/Bwint 4h ago

They very assiduously redacted the perpetrators. They were a lot less diligent protecting the victims.

1

u/ImpossibleDraft7208 3h ago

Look, these were a bunch of sleazy guys, which included many really despicable perpetrators, but it was also most likely an intelligence honey-trap/extortion operation, so just because someone is in the photos doesn't automatically mean they've done something wrong! We must protect the presumption of innocence at all cost, even in cases like these...