The ruling by Houston US Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez takes aim at a move that was bold, creative, and quintessentially satirical, framing it as frivolous when it’s actually rooted in some of the deepest traditions of free speech. By doing this, Judge Lopez not only misunderstands the purpose of satire but also sets a dangerous precedent that could have a chilling effect on how we critique and challenge power in today’s media landscape.
The Onion has built its entire reputation on this principle, skewering everything from politics to pop culture in ways that are both biting and hilarious. So when The Onion decided to buy Infowars, it wasn’t just a business transaction, it was a profound societal statement. It was saying, “Look how absurd this platform is, that we, as a satire outlet, can buy it and make it into what it always was – a complete and total joke.
But the judge didn’t seem to get this. Instead, the ruling dismissed the purchase as a stunt, implying that satire and business don’t mix.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how satire works in a modern context. Satire doesn’t stay confined to newspaper columns or stand-up routines. It can happen through art, performance, social media, and yes, even through corporate acquisitions.
So when The Onion bought Infowars, it wasn’t just poking fun but was rather leveraging the mechanics of capitalism to make a larger point about how misinformation spreads and how ridiculous it is that a platform like Infowars has managed to thrive in the first place.
This decision also fails to appreciate the First Amendment’s role in protecting satire, which has long been recognized as essential to free speech.
In landmark cases such as Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, the Supreme Court made it clear that satire—even or particularly when offensive or outrageous—is protected because it contributes to the robust exchange of ideas that democracy depends on.
By stepping into the middle of what should be a creative expression of that right, the court has undermined one of the most important tools we have for holding powerful entities accountable. And let’s face it—Infowars was and probably still is a powerful entity. Its influence on public discourse, despite being rooted in conspiracy theories and misinformation, is undeniable. The Onion’s ownership could have served as a brilliant counter-narrative, showing that satire has the power to dismantle even the loudest megaphones of disinformation.
What’s even more baffling is how the court ignored the legal basics of the case. The Onion followed all the necessary rules for acquiring a business. It wasn’t some rogue operation—they played their acquisition by the book. The judge, however, seemed to suggest that because the purchase had a satirical motive, it somehow wasn’t legitimate.
That’s a dangerous precedent. Businesses make acquisitions for all kinds of reasons—strategic, symbolic, even philanthropic. Why should satire be singled out as less valid? The judge is essentially saying that if you’re not in it purely for profit, your motives don’t count. That’s not how corporate law works, and it’s certainly not how it should.
by Aron Solomon, LitHub | Read more:
Image: uncredited
[ed. Hmm. Lots of interesting arguments here. Would it have made a difference if a hedge fund had bought Infowars instead of The Onion (even if the intent was the same)? What about big boys buying out potential threats/competitors eg. Facebook/Snapchat, etc.?]
