2 ms·

The way I would put this is that both the freedom of speech and the freedom of association are important. Sometimes they seem to be in tension, but they aren't

The way I would put this is that both the freedom of speech and the freedom of association are important. Sometimes they seem to be in tension, but they aren't really. Rogan is free to speak. Spotify is free to associate with him, or not. And Young is free to associate with Spotify, or not. And Young is free to speak about the reason he is choosing not to associate with Spotify, and they are free to ignore him. I don't really see any problems here, everyone seems to be speaking and acting for themselves, nobody seems to be forcing anybody to do anything. If someone passed a law to force Rogan off Spotify, or to force Young to stay on, then I'd have a problem with it, but as it is, this really seems like a nothingburger.

D13Fd 5y ago
In my view neither of those rights are implicated here. Those are rights against interference by the government. Private individuals and corporations are free to interfere with each other’s speech as long as it doesn’t break any laws. To me, this is just a variety of boycott, and boycotts are something that we have been ok with for a long time.
- sanderjd 5y ago
  I agree, but many people recognize a freedom of speech that is broader than just the prohibition on its infringement by government, and many here are arguing from that school of thought. I believe that if you recognize that broader definition of free speech, that it must also include free association, otherwise you force people to associate with speech they abhor and the whole thing falls apart.
  - yadaeno 5y ago
    I see what you’re saying, it’s just that one party is using their free speech to speak out against free speech. So while technically no rights are violated it is not a win for free speech.
    - sanderjd 5y ago
      Nobody is speaking out against free speech in this situation. Saying "I do not want to be associated with that person" is not speaking out against free speech.

D13Fd 5y ago

In my view neither of those rights are implicated here. Those are rights against interference by the government. Private individuals and corporations are free to interfere with each other’s speech as long as it doesn’t break any laws. To me, this is just a variety of boycott, and boycotts are something that we have been ok with for a long time.

sanderjd 5y ago
I agree, but many people recognize a freedom of speech that is broader than just the prohibition on its infringement by government, and many here are arguing from that school of thought. I believe that if you recognize that broader definition of free speech, that it must also include free association, otherwise you force people to associate with speech they abhor and the whole thing falls apart.
- yadaeno 5y ago
  I see what you’re saying, it’s just that one party is using their free speech to speak out against free speech. So while technically no rights are violated it is not a win for free speech.
  - sanderjd 5y ago
    Nobody is speaking out against free speech in this situation. Saying "I do not want to be associated with that person" is not speaking out against free speech.