3 ms·

> You're absolutely entitled to your opinion on these actions and you're free to support Spotify or Young or Mitchell or any combination of the three. But there

> You're absolutely entitled to your opinion on these actions and you're free to support Spotify or Young or Mitchell or any combination of the three. But there is no "freedom of speech" side here. I'm not sure I agree. Young and Mitchell (how many decades ago were they culturally relevant?) are certainly free to participate on Spotify or not. They certainly cannot be forced to. However, if Rogan were booted from Spotify based on their threats (or others), he would certainly be a loser. Further, if someone demands a second party take some action against a third party by making a quid pro quo threat, that is not clearly protected speech. If the threat involves revealing defamatory information, it constitutes blackmail; if the threat involves criminal harm, it is extortion; and if the threat involves breach of contract, it may be tortious interference, a civil tort. This is not to argue that Mitchell & Young are committing a crime, because they clearly aren't (though they may possibly be perpetrating a civil tort against Rogan depending on his contractual terms with Spotify and their demands), but that threats are not necessarily protected speech in the same category as merely making–or withholding–personal self-expression.

pseudalopex 5y ago
> (how many decades ago were they culturally relevant?) We're talking about them now. > threats They didn't threaten. Young directed his management to remove his music. Mitchell said she decided to remove hers. Is your problem they said why?
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  > We're talking about them now. Not as artists that have anything currently to say, though. We're talking about them as people who are trying to keep someone else from talking.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    > Not as artists that have anything currently to say, though. We're talking about them as people who are trying to keep someone else from talking. We're talking about them as people who just said something. Young sold half his music rights for $150 million last year. He signed a deal with SiriusXM within days after he left Spotify. Mitchell won a Grammy in 2016 and was nominated this year. Their music continued to be relevant to someone obviously.
- baryphonic 5y ago
  [deleted]
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    > Please read what I wrote again. I said Mitchell & Young were entirely free to participate in Spotify or not. I didn't say you didn't. > I'll leave it up to you to decide if that constitutes a threat. It doesn't. A threat is an signal of intent before an action. Young jumped to the action.
    - baryphonic 5y ago
      I was wrong and stand corrected: it is not a threat. What Young said is more of an opening offer of a quid pro quo. The overall point I was making stands, that freedom of speech (both the legal protection and the ethical principle) does not extend to coercive speech like it does to persuasive and expressive speech. If some artist simply said, "Take my music off of Spotify because I have no confidence in the platform," then that would clearly be fully protected. If another said, "Spotify has until Feb 1 to remove Joe Rogan, or I'm pulling my catalog until they do," I think that'd be a lot more risky, especially if the artist had prominence.
      - pseudalopex 5y ago
        What Young said was more of a parting. Tortious interference requires the defendant's conduct was illegal in some other way apparently. In California at least.[1] [1] https://www.bonalaw.com/insights/legal-resources/what-are-the-elements-for-a-tortious-interference-claim-under-california-law https://www.bonalaw.com/insights/legal-resources/what-are-th...

pseudalopex 5y ago

> (how many decades ago were they culturally relevant?) We're talking about them now. > threats They didn't threaten. Young directed his management to remove his music. Mitchell said she decided to remove hers. Is your problem they said why?

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
> We're talking about them now. Not as artists that have anything currently to say, though. We're talking about them as people who are trying to keep someone else from talking.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  > Not as artists that have anything currently to say, though. We're talking about them as people who are trying to keep someone else from talking. We're talking about them as people who just said something. Young sold half his music rights for $150 million last year. He signed a deal with SiriusXM within days after he left Spotify. Mitchell won a Grammy in 2016 and was nominated this year. Their music continued to be relevant to someone obviously.
baryphonic 5y ago
[deleted]
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  > Please read what I wrote again. I said Mitchell & Young were entirely free to participate in Spotify or not. I didn't say you didn't. > I'll leave it up to you to decide if that constitutes a threat. It doesn't. A threat is an signal of intent before an action. Young jumped to the action.
  - baryphonic 5y ago
    I was wrong and stand corrected: it is not a threat. What Young said is more of an opening offer of a quid pro quo. The overall point I was making stands, that freedom of speech (both the legal protection and the ethical principle) does not extend to coercive speech like it does to persuasive and expressive speech. If some artist simply said, "Take my music off of Spotify because I have no confidence in the platform," then that would clearly be fully protected. If another said, "Spotify has until Feb 1 to remove Joe Rogan, or I'm pulling my catalog until they do," I think that'd be a lot more risky, especially if the artist had prominence.
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      What Young said was more of a parting. Tortious interference requires the defendant's conduct was illegal in some other way apparently. In California at least.[1] [1] https://www.bonalaw.com/insights/legal-resources/what-are-the-elements-for-a-tortious-interference-claim-under-california-law https://www.bonalaw.com/insights/legal-resources/what-are-th...