6 ms·

Fortunately Rogan is still as free as ever to publish these episodes in any other venue, but Spotify (like any publisher) reserves the right to host (or not) wh

Fortunately Rogan is still as free as ever to publish these episodes in any other venue, but Spotify (like any publisher) reserves the right to host (or not) whatever content it wants. This isn't an infringement on anyone's speech, so hopefully "pro-speech" people (interesting false dichotomy you've struck between this group and "anti-Rogan" people) are just as happy as they were yesterday. EDIT: A lot of reflexive comments here very quickly assuming this is about removing Rogan's COVID-sensitive content, but looking at the list of removed episodes and how many guests are the subjects of serious sexual allegations, people might want to consider who they're actually defending here.

joshuamorton 5y ago
I'm actually not sure that's true, it depends on the precise details of spotify's contract with rogan. Part of it was exclusivity. But even still, its censorship Rogan opted into to get $$$.
- rainonmoon 5y ago
  You're right, unfortunately I fell prey to the same knee-jerk instinct that I'm calling out! It would've been more accurate for me to say he's free to publish these views in any other avenue, if not the episodes.
  - dev_tty01 5y ago
    Is he though? I suspect Spotify owns the rights to those episodes and to his show, so I doubt he is free to publish these views in another avenue. Spotify wouldn't pay $100M and not contractually lock up all of those rights.
    - rainonmoon 5y ago
      It's meaningless to speculate but I doubt Spotify can stop Joe Rogan from repeating any of the assertions made in his podcasts on, say, Twitter, or at live events, or in a bar. In terms of whether this is an issue of freedom of speech, the point is he has the same rights as he had yesterday.
femto113 5y ago
Actually Spotify bought the exclusive rights to his full back catalog (for a lot of money) so he's not free to publish them elsewhere.
- TOMDM 5y ago
  So he sold the rights to Spotify so they can do with it whatever they want
silisili 5y ago
> interesting false dichotomy you've struck between this group and "anti-Rogan" people People threatening to leave if you let someone else talk is pretty much a good definition of being against free speech.
- triceratops 5y ago
  So if I insult and berate you at a party, and you choose to go home after seeing that the host won't intervene, you're the one who's against free speech?
  - silisili 5y ago
    I think that's a little unfair. If Spotify were just say, Neil Young and Joe Rogan material, this would be way different. To your example, if the party had say 50k people at it, correct. I really wouldn't care what one person was saying. That aside, I don't recall Rogan attacking anyone directly.
  - d110af5ccf 5y ago
    Insulting and berating has a somewhat threatening connotation to me and so I think isn't even a remotely accurate analogy. Say Bob and Sue are at the party talking about some topic you don't approve of. They aren't talking to you, just each other. You request that the host remove them. The host refuses. So you attempt to get other people to very vocally leave the place in order to pressure the host to kick Bob and Sue out. Such actions are clearly anti free speech.
    - triceratops 5y ago
      > So you attempt to get other people to very vocally leave the place So...exercising your free speech to convince other people to exercise their free speech? Sounds like lots of free speech to me. It's up to the host whose presence they value more. They can always decide you're an irritating busybody and no one wants your negativity killing the vibe.
- Kaze404 5y ago
ekianjo 5y ago
Is he able to republish these episodes? No exclusivity contract?
- mohamez 5y ago
  I think it's exclusive, otherwise why would he stop publishing on YouTube.
  - fastball 5y ago
    Yes it was exclusive, but I wonder if the exclusivity applies for episodes Spotify decides not to host/publish. I would imagine there has to be a usage clause in the exclusivity deal which reverts rights back to Rogan if Spotify doesn't publish the JRE in part or whole.
Gimpei 5y ago
Heidegger was a member of the Nazi party; Simone be Beauvoir was banned from teaching for molesting her students [1]; and Foucault may have molested children [2], and certainly he advocated for the right to have sex with minors [3]. The publisher's of these philosophers are private companies so why don't we wage a twitter campaign against them until they stop publishing these racists and sexual predators. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_de_Beauvoir#Personal_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_de_Beauvoir#Personal_li... [2] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/4/16/reckoning-with-foucaults-sexual-abuse-of-boys-in-tunisia https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/4/16/reckoning-with-... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of...

joshuamorton 5y ago

I'm actually not sure that's true, it depends on the precise details of spotify's contract with rogan. Part of it was exclusivity. But even still, its censorship Rogan opted into to get $$$.

rainonmoon 5y ago
You're right, unfortunately I fell prey to the same knee-jerk instinct that I'm calling out! It would've been more accurate for me to say he's free to publish these views in any other avenue, if not the episodes.
- dev_tty01 5y ago
  Is he though? I suspect Spotify owns the rights to those episodes and to his show, so I doubt he is free to publish these views in another avenue. Spotify wouldn't pay $100M and not contractually lock up all of those rights.
  - rainonmoon 5y ago
    It's meaningless to speculate but I doubt Spotify can stop Joe Rogan from repeating any of the assertions made in his podcasts on, say, Twitter, or at live events, or in a bar. In terms of whether this is an issue of freedom of speech, the point is he has the same rights as he had yesterday.

femto113 5y ago

Actually Spotify bought the exclusive rights to his full back catalog (for a lot of money) so he's not free to publish them elsewhere.

TOMDM 5y ago
So he sold the rights to Spotify so they can do with it whatever they want

silisili 5y ago

> interesting false dichotomy you've struck between this group and "anti-Rogan" people People threatening to leave if you let someone else talk is pretty much a good definition of being against free speech.

triceratops 5y ago
So if I insult and berate you at a party, and you choose to go home after seeing that the host won't intervene, you're the one who's against free speech?
- silisili 5y ago
  I think that's a little unfair. If Spotify were just say, Neil Young and Joe Rogan material, this would be way different. To your example, if the party had say 50k people at it, correct. I really wouldn't care what one person was saying. That aside, I don't recall Rogan attacking anyone directly.
- d110af5ccf 5y ago
  Insulting and berating has a somewhat threatening connotation to me and so I think isn't even a remotely accurate analogy. Say Bob and Sue are at the party talking about some topic you don't approve of. They aren't talking to you, just each other. You request that the host remove them. The host refuses. So you attempt to get other people to very vocally leave the place in order to pressure the host to kick Bob and Sue out. Such actions are clearly anti free speech.
  - triceratops 5y ago
    > So you attempt to get other people to very vocally leave the place So...exercising your free speech to convince other people to exercise their free speech? Sounds like lots of free speech to me. It's up to the host whose presence they value more. They can always decide you're an irritating busybody and no one wants your negativity killing the vibe.
Kaze404 5y ago

ekianjo 5y ago

Is he able to republish these episodes? No exclusivity contract?

mohamez 5y ago
I think it's exclusive, otherwise why would he stop publishing on YouTube.
- fastball 5y ago
  Yes it was exclusive, but I wonder if the exclusivity applies for episodes Spotify decides not to host/publish. I would imagine there has to be a usage clause in the exclusivity deal which reverts rights back to Rogan if Spotify doesn't publish the JRE in part or whole.

Gimpei 5y ago

Heidegger was a member of the Nazi party; Simone be Beauvoir was banned from teaching for molesting her students [1]; and Foucault may have molested children [2], and certainly he advocated for the right to have sex with minors [3]. The publisher's of these philosophers are private companies so why don't we wage a twitter campaign against them until they stop publishing these racists and sexual predators. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_de_Beauvoir#Personal_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_de_Beauvoir#Personal_li... [2] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/4/16/reckoning-with-foucaults-sexual-abuse-of-boys-in-tunisia https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/4/16/reckoning-with-... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of...