4 ms·

You are free to associate/disassociate with whoever you want. When you pressure other entities to associate/dissociate with someone according to your preference

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.

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.