Artists who care about Freedom need to threaten to pull their work if Spotify Censors Joe Rogan

Teigen wrote:

The right to free speech is a protection from government action. It doesn't protect you from private entities. When you go to work tomorrow tell your boss to F off. You won't get arrested but see if you get to keep your job.

Well it should be, just as freedom of religion is protected. In the UK we have wrongful dismissal laws as well.

So hilarious the left arguing for cancel culture on the basis of the free market. Strongly suspect if it was 'liberal' voices getting cancelled you wouldn't be singing the same tune.

In any case, the suggestion of the OP was to exercise the similar right to pull your services.

Left wingers believe that women or black people or gay and trans people have 'no voice' because of 'instutionalized patriarchy, white privilage, etc etc, but billionaire CEOs deciding what is allowed to be said is no issue, so long as they tow the liberal line.

If Spotify is so powerful how is it that an old washed up rocker can tell them what Rogan or anyone else can say on their podcast? Why don't they just tell old Neil to FO?

I said nothing about liberal or conservative. And your argument is nonsensical. The right to free speech never meant you can say anything you like with zero consequences. It has only ever protected citizens from government action when the government doesn't like what you have to say. Even then there are exceptions. I don't care if the speech is liberal or hard-core right. If a private media outlet doesn't feel a content contributors speech reflects the values and beliefs of company, they don't have to air or print it. You can disagree with them doing so but they have violated no individual's right to free speech as they are not capable of doing so. Only the government can violate that right because that right protects you from the government.

gfghjb wrote:

I think you’re getting the word “censor” mixed up wit the phrase “I don’t agree with.” Removing music isn’t censoring anything.

Amazing how many Rogan fans don’t understand this.

Then you have the people who think they are upholding rights of free speech while they are really saying singers should have their music at a company they think is a bad company. The singers should just shut up and sing and not do any form of protest against a company the singers feel is doing something wrong.

I gots to pee wrote:

gfghjb wrote:

I think you’re getting the word “censor” mixed up wit the phrase “I don’t agree with.” Removing music isn’t censoring anything.

Amazing how many Rogan fans don’t understand this.

Then you have the people who think they are upholding rights of free speech while they are really saying singers should have their music at a company they think is a bad company. The singers should just shut up and sing and not do any form of protest against a company the singers feel is doing something wrong.

Exactly, most artists don't control their work. In most cases the record company will own the music.

For the artist, regaining some power over their performance and not having it associated with things they do not want it associated with (think political rallies, commercials etc) is far more important to them than anything Joe Rogan is concerned about. The growth of YouTube and Spotify has meant their music getting further mixed with a wide range of topics and personalities that would not normally interact.

The story has become about censorship but actually the context of the problem is that most musicians are not pleased at all with the existence of streaming platforms.

Just One Problem. wrote:

Too bad 95% of all talented musical artists are liberal.

Liberals do not support censorship.

Better ideas win you twit. You nerds don’t understand anything. The slope is too slippery to give up rights. Soon leftists will question whether the accused should even get a lawyer or trial because “they just seem so guilty anyways”

I don't think Spotify should remove Joe Rogan or censor Joe Rogan and I don't like it when liberals try to silence people like Joe Rogan. That being said, just imagine how many people Joe has inadvertently killed with misinformation. It's probably thousands.

I find it hard to decide on freedom/censorship before I have a definition of what kind of entity Spotify is.

I mean, a newspaper has full right not to publish something it disagrees with, that's not censorship. When they have a prominent columnist they usually would publish anything he/she writes but put a disclaimer that the opinions stated below are purely personal.

But I'm not sure if Spotify is even a media. Maybe it is more like a commodity. Like say internet provider. Is Internet provider entitled to an opinion which sources contain truth and which lies? I don't think so. If they block access to certain web sites, that's the very definition of modern-day censorship, exactly what China and Russia are doing.

Cancelling people/companies/organizations because they have a contrary opinion is extremely dangerous.

"They are protected when they protect the rights of their enemies to speak. And they are in danger when they support restrictions against their enemies. Because you can't limit those restrictions and you can't trust who's going to be in power to enforce them. The price of our free speech is to be insulted by the ugliness of speech we hate" - Ira Glasser

A great example of this is the ACLU defending the first amendment rights of the KKK and Nazis.

I gots to pee wrote:

gfghjb wrote:

I think you’re getting the word “censor” mixed up wit the phrase “I don’t agree with.” Removing music isn’t censoring anything.

Amazing how many Rogan fans don’t understand this.

Then you have the people who think they are upholding rights of free speech while they are really saying singers should have their music at a company they think is a bad company. The singers should just shut up and sing and not do any form of protest against a company the singers feel is doing something wrong.

While spotify has a right to cancel Rogan to not place this as a free speech issue is disingenuous and wrong. Democratic politicians have been threatening tech platforms with regulation or anti-trust, etc if they do not censor "misinformation" which is often just things that Democrats don't like. This is illegal and a first amendment violation. The government cannot threaten others with sanctions if they do not limit speech on their platforms, there are court rulings confirming this.

As far as the Joe Rogan situation a society that accepts this kind of authoritarianism does risk losing its free speech. Politicians respond to culture and if we become a culture of censorship the politicians will begin to use the state to further censor.

I'm pretty sure Spotify will can Rogan at this point, I don't think it is a coincidence that there has not been a new episode of his show since this controversy erupted. Hopefully, he goes to a free speech platform like Rumble and doesn't change a bit.

Yet another conservative who doesn’t understand the 1st amendment.

Not so sure having Ted Nugent quit Spotify is going to save Rogan.

And let's take a deeper dive into the "freedoms" at stake here. If you believe that Rogan should be free to put anti-vaxxer disinformation on his show, then what about Spotify and Neil Young's "freedoms". Isn't Neil Young free to express his disgust for Rogan's anti-vaxxer shows by threatening to pull his music from Spotify? Isn't Spotify free to protect its capital investments in its platform by taking action to address its consumers concerns about Rogan being a source of COVID anti-vaxxer disinformation? Since when has "free speech" included not only the right to freely express yourself, but also the right to force your speech on others and bar people who disagree with you from taking action against you?

Dr. Yuengling wrote:

3. It might interest you to know that scientists’ understanding of gravity has changed and evolved significantly throughout the years. None of that evolution would have been possible if nobody questioned the mainstream viewpoint.

**********************

That ain't true

In fact, every attempt to "redefine" or somehow improve the theory of gravity (General Relativity) just ends up confirming it.

birdbeard wrote:

Steve The Addict OFFICIAL -----^^^^^ wrote:

Yeah it's pretty pathetic to cancel/try to cancel an opinion (or even facts!) just because you don't agree with it. What is this world coming to? Absolutely appalling that this behavior is accepted and encouraged. Not surprising though.

Misinformation is not an “opinion.” That would be saying that “I don’t believe gravity exists” is an opinion: it’s not.

Wrong. Many Christians don't believe in secular gravity, rather believe in intelligent falling. That is an opinion, by definition.

surveysays wrote:

Yet another conservative who doesn’t understand the 1st amendment.

Clarify what I said that was false. It is illegal for the state to pressure others to restrict free speech through means of regulation. This has been ruled on in the courts.

As I've said Spotify firing Rogan is not a violation of the first ammendment. But once society starts accepting this kind of censorship you better believe government actors will begin to make move to push for censorship of things they want silenced. We've seen senior members of Biden's administration say Spotify needs to do more about Rogan. It probably would not be possible to make the case that is a 1st amendment violation but it definately violates the spirit of free speech.

No, Young said he doesn’t want to be associated with vaccine misinformation and exercised his freedom of choice by removing his music from the Spotify platform.

Spotify is a private company, choose a lane OP. A private company is not obligated to share views that threaten others (this is different from a private company arguing it should be free to discriminate however they want).