Who, precisely, is "canceling" (much less "silencing") who in this scenario?
As I recall, the Supreme Court has consistently recognized the freedom of association as a core component of free speech. And that seems to be what's happening.
As I recall, the Supreme Court has consistently recognized the freedom of association as a core component of free speech. And that seems to be what's happening.
He buys a Ubuntu box to host the videos. And now he needs a static IP and a domain name. Are DNS providers considered in association to Joe Rogan's speech if they sell him a domain name?
Seems to be true going by the assumption that DNS providers are tech companies. If so, should the DNS providers decide not to sell Joe Rogan a domain name fearing retribution from other customers, and as a consequence Joe Rogan is practically NOT visible on the internet at all to any reasonable person, isn't that not in the spirit of free speech?
EDIT: I'm being downvoted to oblivion for stating an objective fact. This is unbecoming of HN. I'm out.
But the history of the word "boycott" in the US has a distinctly anti-racial hue, and people who yammer about deplatforming seem to take extreme pains to avoid any comparison between today's boycotts and those good old lunch counters.
Young is saying "I have some number of people who listen to my content and if you want to distribute my content you have to do this thing". Spotify said "no thank you". Where's the problem?