5 ms·

It'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 sp

It'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 ago
You 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 ago
  People 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 ago
    If 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 ago
      I 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 ago
      Making 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.
      - hackinthebochs 5y ago
        The issue isn't whether Neil Young's speech act was in accordance with free speech--it was. The issue is whether his speech act was indented to curtail the speech of another--it was. These claims are not in contradiction.
        kelseyfrog 5y ago
        It's almost as if free speech absolutism alone isn't a complete and consistent framework. Deciding that speech acts which call for the curtailment free speech are permissible makes the system inconsistent. And deciding that those speech acts lies outside of the system in which they are constructed makes the system incomplete.
        Kaze404 5y ago
        This logic very quickly crumbles when you are confronted with the fact that Joe Rogan saying trans people are the downfall of "western society" is also intended to curtail the speech of another.
  - silisili 5y ago
- krapp 5y ago
  >When you pressure other entities to associate/dissociate with someone according to your preferences, that's a free speech issue. That's free speech. As long as no one is being coerced through violence, attempting to influence someone's opinion and convince them to associate or disassociate with someone is clearly free speech. Hell, it describes most political speech and a lot of journalism.
  - d110af5ccf 5y ago
    > > When you pressure other entities to associate/dissociate with someone according to your preferences, that's a free speech issue. > That's free speech. Yes, speaking to someone in an attempt to pressure them not to speak to someone else is indeed a form of speech. However, the things you are expressing (ie attempting to pressure them) is an active attempt to curtail someone else's speech. So you are using your speech in an attempt to curtail someone else's speech. > As long as no one is being coerced through violence, attempting to influence someone's opinion and convince them to associate or disassociate with someone is clearly free speech. No one claimed otherwise. It is clearly legal to do so. It is also clearly an anti free speech sort of thing to do.
    - kelseyfrog 5y ago
      As a free speech absolutist, I will never stop someone from saying that free speech should be curtailed. To do so would be antithetical the the principle of free speech.
    - krapp 5y ago
      >Yes, speaking to someone in an attempt to pressure them not to speak to someone else is indeed a form of speech. No, it isn't merely a form of speech. It's free speech. It's just as free as any other kind of speech. Free speech allows for conflict with speech, and it doesn't guarantee all speech all possible platforms. You don't get to decide that only the speech you agree with gets to be free, but speech that disagrees with that doesn't.
- mullingitover 5y ago
  > When you pressure other entities to associate/dissociate with someone according to your preferences, that's a free speech issue. That's not a 'free speech issue,' that's free speech in action. Until the government is punishing someone for their speech, everyone has and is using free speech. If you want to see actual free speech issues, look at the anti-BDS laws[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws
  - d110af5ccf 5y ago
    Free speech isn't limited to legal matters. It is an ideal. If you pressure someone not to associate with others then you are intentionally taking action with the intent to suppress speech. That is anti free speech. There is simply no way around that. The US affords protections against the government infringing your speech, but not (generally) against private parties doing so. To put it bluntly, cancel culture is anti free speech by definition.
    - mullingitover 5y ago
      > To put it bluntly, cancel culture is anti free speech by definition. Trying to duck consequences by crying 'cancel culture' is itself an attempt to stifle speech. When consumers protest a business, they're using speech, not 'pressure,' because in that context 'pressure' isn't a real thing. There's government action against a business, and there's plain old real world consequences.
      - finite_jest 5y ago
        I don't think that's a good framing of the issue. Otherwise, why is merely making the "cancellers" face the "consequences" of their actions bad?
      - hackinthebochs 5y ago
        >When consumers protest a business, they're using speech, not 'pressure,' because in that context 'pressure' isn't a real thing. This isn't true in the age of social media. A relatively small protest (i.e. not large enough to register on their financials) can create a disproportionate amount of bad press which can exert pressure on a company to act. Manipulating social media algorithms to surface your grievance to the top of the trending list is a kind of pressure.
throwaway984393 5y ago
Free Speech: when you try to force a private company to broadcast your speech for free
lukifer 5y ago
The primary issue is being uncomfortable with other people making free associations (Rogan and his audience). One's product being carried in the same store as someone else's product is a tenuous "association" at best. Don't get me wrong, freedom cuts both ways; some hindrances to free speech are perfectly legal, and would ironically be violations of the First Amendment to prevent! But let's not pretend that these kinds of boycotts are simple discomfort or preference: they're an attempt to change what is permissible to say, because "won't somebody think of the children?"
- Kaze404 5y ago
  I don't understand why that's a problem to some people. Isn't the whole point of the "free market" that I'm allowed to cancel my subscription if I disagree with whatever Spotify is doing? From my perspective it is a very obvious double standard when people consider not wanting Spotify to air anti-trans rhetoric an attack on free speech, but calling the acceptance of trans people a sign of societal collapse is not a problem at all. Is it not a form of censorship when someone tries every tactic in the book to discredit a group of people to an audience of millions?
  - lukifer 5y ago
    > calling the acceptance of trans people a sign of societal collapse > tries every tactic in the book to discredit a group of people At the risk of taking the bait: this is clear evidence you've never listened to the show. If you want to take issue with his specific opinions on trans women in fighting sports, or specific choices of guests, fair enough; but the "guilt by association" and "indictment by meme" is exactly why we all benefit from free and open discourse, including being tolerant and charitable to opposing views. Witness the "cancellations" of trans-ally voices like ContraPoints or Lindsay Ellis (the latter of whom was so traumatized that she quit YouTube permanently). If you want to draw a line somewhere, and withdraw your participation by boycott, or even ostracize other participants, that's your right; but don't pretend you're not attempting to influence societal discourse, and prevent third-party conversations and associations.

It'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 ago

You 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 ago
People 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 ago
  If 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 ago
    I 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 ago
    Making 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.
    - hackinthebochs 5y ago
      The issue isn't whether Neil Young's speech act was in accordance with free speech--it was. The issue is whether his speech act was indented to curtail the speech of another--it was. These claims are not in contradiction.
      - kelseyfrog 5y ago
        It's almost as if free speech absolutism alone isn't a complete and consistent framework. Deciding that speech acts which call for the curtailment free speech are permissible makes the system inconsistent. And deciding that those speech acts lies outside of the system in which they are constructed makes the system incomplete.
      - Kaze404 5y ago
        This logic very quickly crumbles when you are confronted with the fact that Joe Rogan saying trans people are the downfall of "western society" is also intended to curtail the speech of another.
- silisili 5y ago
krapp 5y ago
>When you pressure other entities to associate/dissociate with someone according to your preferences, that's a free speech issue. That's free speech. As long as no one is being coerced through violence, attempting to influence someone's opinion and convince them to associate or disassociate with someone is clearly free speech. Hell, it describes most political speech and a lot of journalism.
- d110af5ccf 5y ago
  > > When you pressure other entities to associate/dissociate with someone according to your preferences, that's a free speech issue. > That's free speech. Yes, speaking to someone in an attempt to pressure them not to speak to someone else is indeed a form of speech. However, the things you are expressing (ie attempting to pressure them) is an active attempt to curtail someone else's speech. So you are using your speech in an attempt to curtail someone else's speech. > As long as no one is being coerced through violence, attempting to influence someone's opinion and convince them to associate or disassociate with someone is clearly free speech. No one claimed otherwise. It is clearly legal to do so. It is also clearly an anti free speech sort of thing to do.
  - kelseyfrog 5y ago
    As a free speech absolutist, I will never stop someone from saying that free speech should be curtailed. To do so would be antithetical the the principle of free speech.
  - krapp 5y ago
    >Yes, speaking to someone in an attempt to pressure them not to speak to someone else is indeed a form of speech. No, it isn't merely a form of speech. It's free speech. It's just as free as any other kind of speech. Free speech allows for conflict with speech, and it doesn't guarantee all speech all possible platforms. You don't get to decide that only the speech you agree with gets to be free, but speech that disagrees with that doesn't.
mullingitover 5y ago
> When you pressure other entities to associate/dissociate with someone according to your preferences, that's a free speech issue. That's not a 'free speech issue,' that's free speech in action. Until the government is punishing someone for their speech, everyone has and is using free speech. If you want to see actual free speech issues, look at the anti-BDS laws[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws
- d110af5ccf 5y ago
  Free speech isn't limited to legal matters. It is an ideal. If you pressure someone not to associate with others then you are intentionally taking action with the intent to suppress speech. That is anti free speech. There is simply no way around that. The US affords protections against the government infringing your speech, but not (generally) against private parties doing so. To put it bluntly, cancel culture is anti free speech by definition.
  - mullingitover 5y ago
    > To put it bluntly, cancel culture is anti free speech by definition. Trying to duck consequences by crying 'cancel culture' is itself an attempt to stifle speech. When consumers protest a business, they're using speech, not 'pressure,' because in that context 'pressure' isn't a real thing. There's government action against a business, and there's plain old real world consequences.
    - finite_jest 5y ago
      I don't think that's a good framing of the issue. Otherwise, why is merely making the "cancellers" face the "consequences" of their actions bad?
    - hackinthebochs 5y ago
      >When consumers protest a business, they're using speech, not 'pressure,' because in that context 'pressure' isn't a real thing. This isn't true in the age of social media. A relatively small protest (i.e. not large enough to register on their financials) can create a disproportionate amount of bad press which can exert pressure on a company to act. Manipulating social media algorithms to surface your grievance to the top of the trending list is a kind of pressure.

throwaway984393 5y ago

Free Speech: when you try to force a private company to broadcast your speech for free

lukifer 5y ago

The primary issue is being uncomfortable with other people making free associations (Rogan and his audience). One's product being carried in the same store as someone else's product is a tenuous "association" at best. Don't get me wrong, freedom cuts both ways; some hindrances to free speech are perfectly legal, and would ironically be violations of the First Amendment to prevent! But let's not pretend that these kinds of boycotts are simple discomfort or preference: they're an attempt to change what is permissible to say, because "won't somebody think of the children?"

Kaze404 5y ago
I don't understand why that's a problem to some people. Isn't the whole point of the "free market" that I'm allowed to cancel my subscription if I disagree with whatever Spotify is doing? From my perspective it is a very obvious double standard when people consider not wanting Spotify to air anti-trans rhetoric an attack on free speech, but calling the acceptance of trans people a sign of societal collapse is not a problem at all. Is it not a form of censorship when someone tries every tactic in the book to discredit a group of people to an audience of millions?
- lukifer 5y ago
  > calling the acceptance of trans people a sign of societal collapse > tries every tactic in the book to discredit a group of people At the risk of taking the bait: this is clear evidence you've never listened to the show. If you want to take issue with his specific opinions on trans women in fighting sports, or specific choices of guests, fair enough; but the "guilt by association" and "indictment by meme" is exactly why we all benefit from free and open discourse, including being tolerant and charitable to opposing views. Witness the "cancellations" of trans-ally voices like ContraPoints or Lindsay Ellis (the latter of whom was so traumatized that she quit YouTube permanently). If you want to draw a line somewhere, and withdraw your participation by boycott, or even ostracize other participants, that's your right; but don't pretend you're not attempting to influence societal discourse, and prevent third-party conversations and associations.