4 ms·

[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...