5 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoSo 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 agoI 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 agoInsulting 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 agoIt's hilarious to me how every time this "free speech" "discussion" comes up, it inevitably leads to "people not wanting to associate with me or listen to me speak is denying my free speech".
- hackinthebochs 5y agoYou are free to associate/disassociate with whoever you want. When you pressure other entities to associate/dissociate with someone according to your preferences, that's a free speech issue.
- afavour 5y agoPeople keep saying this but Neil Young and the others never pressured Spotify to do anything about Rogan or anything else. His statement was very clear, he didn't want the association and wanted his music removed.
- hackinthebochs 5y agoIf he had just quietly pulled his music, I would agree. But since he made a public show about it, its clear the purpose is to exert pressure on Spotify and/or to encourage others to also pull their music to force Spotify to change their policy on Rogan.
- lukifer 5y agoI just read his statement for the first time, it's quite interesting. He doesn't actually mention Rogan by name, and instead targets Spotify explicitly: https://neilyoungarchives.com/news/1/article?id=Spotify-In-The-Name-Of-Truth https://neilyoungarchives.com/news/1/article?id=Spotify-In-T...
- kelseyfrog 5y agoMaking a public show to exert pressure is an act of free speech. Just because someone doesn't agree with the intent or consequences doesn't make it not a speech act.
- willis936 5y agoThis is a misunderstanding of the concept of free speech in the US. Is the capital G government intervening with discourse? If not then there are no first amendment violations.
- silisili 5y agoNobody mentioned first amendment violations...
- willis936 5y agoOh so then no one mentioned concerns with free speech? There are no other free speech protections in the US.
- d110af5ccf 5y agoI don't think anyone claimed that a government protection was being violated. It's you that saw "free speech" and apparently assumed that meant the first amendment and the US government. There are ways in which I can legally attempt to suppress the speech of others, for example I could threaten to evict guests from my home if they bring up certain topics. That is clearly an action which goes against the principles of freedom of speech but it is not a violation of any of the protections provided by the US government. Whether such an action on my part is morally justified will be highly context dependent. For example, perhaps I don't want certain topics discussed in front of my children in my own home?
- willis936 5y agoDo people feel entitled to rights that are not enshrined in law?
- waffle_maniac 5y agoSuppressing Joe Rogan is an organization expressing their free speech rights. Or perhaps you think organizations don’t have the right to control what is on their platform?
- skoskie 5y agoFree speech is about GOVERNMENT interference. You seem to have that confused with the free market, or perhaps just confused by social consequences of anti-social behavior. Nobody is silencing JRE.
- xdennis 5y agoYou're confusing free speech with the first amendment. When Voltaire wrote about freedom of speech he wasn't referring to the US government. It's a universal principle.
- silisili 5y agoThe first amendment is about GOVERNMENT interference. I didn't mention it. Some people believe in free speech, period.
- theossuary 5y agoPeople aren't mad Spotify is hosting Rogan; they're mad that Spotify gave him 100m to be the exclusive distributor of his crap. I don't get why people keep trying to turn this into a free speech issue. It's not. I stopped giving Spotify money because they're going to turn around and use it to fund thinga I disagree with. So I guess people are just arguing against capitalism?
- bandyaboot 5y agoThose people are choosing to disassociate with a platform because they believe it is choosing to host harmful misinformation. Agree or disagree with that opinion, you suggesting it is wrong to do that in the name of free speech seems hypocritical.
- bondolo 5y agoImagine you have gym membership. The Gym is OK but the equipment isn't always maintained and the staff are underpaid. One day you come in and dead centre is a brand new expensive and loud fart machine. You decide this is too much and join a different gym. How is this "silencing" Joe Rogan?