You're absolutely entitled to your opinion on these actions and you're free to support Spotify or Young or Mitchell or any combination of the three. But there is no "freedom of speech" side here.
What I find distasteful is the framing of “Rogan or me” as a way to pressure Spotify to pull Rogan from the platform.
Sure Spotify could do that, but they shouldn’t.
I read this as if you want me get rid of him, but I’ll paste it here for clarity. Others may see it differently.
If he is uncomfortable sharing the platform so wants to remove his music fine, I’d just say that without the “you can’t have both of us” implication.
Why not?
> If he is uncomfortable sharing the platform so wants to remove his music fine, I’d just say that without the “you can’t have both of us” implication.
The 1st part implies the 2nd.
You can’t always if the other party won’t engage in good faith, but from what I’ve seen of Rogan he does. Harder with cases like Brett Weinstein where I think engaging is a waste of time imo.
So there’s a pragmatic argument here about getting the outcome you want.
For the latter rather than pulling with a “me or him” framing. It is possible to reaffirm the shared freedom of speech yet saying you disagree and don’t want to share the platform directly (because it indirectly helps fund it). That’s probably what I’d do in that situation.
As I said, my understanding. And I haven't gone groveling through the back news items to prove it. Just my recollection of how I heard it reported over a few days.
This is ridiculously disingenuous. He made an ultimatum, and his position is very clear. This is too obvious to honestly debate. If his desire isn't for Spotify to remove/censor Rogan, I imagine he'll clarify. Because he's blatantly calling for it.
"I support free speech. I have never been in favor of censorship. Private companies have the right to choose what they profit from, just as I can choose not to have my music support a platform that disseminates harmful information."[1]
[1] https://neilyoungarchives.com/news/1/article?id=Spotify-More...
Spotify is a business that offers a catalog of content for a fee. Their value proposition is that they provide content people want to consume. Perhaps some content has fallen out of favor for some reason. Could be objectionable or just stale, public opinion is always shifting. If someone with more appealing content comes along and says "you have to get rid of that other thing in order to distribute my content" then how is there some moral choice Spotify has to make? They can do anything they want, and as a business they will probably choose based on what will make them money. This is a proxy for doing the thing that best aligns with their customer's interests. It is impossible for any one organization to satisfy everyone's opinions. This is literally the point of freedom of expression.
Rogan’s deal was $100M which is way more money than Young. So if it’s a business move than keeping Rogan is the obvious choice as he provides way more value to Spotify.
I care less about that though and more about the principled position here. In this case I think they’re the same.
Keeping or removing Rogan is an exercise of their speech and within their right to decide.
Still, I think it’s generally a bad idea to remove someone because of this kind of pressure. In Rogan’s specific case I also think it would be the wrong decision.
I’m against internet cancel mobs as a general rule.
I can't agree with this in general. I can imagine a situation where it may be reasonable so I wouldn't tie my hands. In fact making this decision on a case by case basis is the business Spotify is in.
> In Rogan’s specific case I also think it would be the wrong decision.
Sure but that's just this case, it's not a fundamental question of freedom of expression. This is what I mean when I say "there is no freedom of speech position". Literally everyone involved including Spotify, Rogan, Young, Mitchell, you, me, and anyone who reads and decides to reply or not is exercising their right to free expression.
In a practical sense, one side is arguing to suppress someone’s ability to speak/express themselves via a popular platform and one side is not.
"I will not defend your opinion, but I will defend your right to express it." Something along those lines.
With these actions,Joni and Neil are saying: "I will not defend your right to express them, in fact I will try to stop you from expressing it."
"I will not defend your opinion, but I will defend your right to express it." Something along those lines.
With these actions,Joni and Neil say: "I will not defend your right to express them, in fact I will try to stop you from expressing it."
Obviously, but that's not the topic at hand.
> I were Spotify the move is to take the free speech position
There is no "free speech position". Spotify, Rogan, Young, and Mitchell are all exercising their right to free expression here.
is not an argument for free expression.
It's free expression arguing against allowing others to exercise free expression.
>There is no "free speech position".
Who is Rogan trying to silence?
Spotify didn't give into demands to censor.
Those are free speech positions.
> Spotify didn't give into demands to censor.
Censorship is a loaded term in conversations about freedom of speech, especially in the United States. IMHO Spotify, Young, Mitchell and Rogan are incapable of censorship in the first amendment sense because they are not government entities.
It is your free expression to make that argument, but the argument itself is against free expression.
>incapable of censorship
That's a mighty narrow definition of censorship. (I didn't say government censorship or even mention the 1st amendment.)
What is it that you would call Young's implied request to Spotify, if not an ultimatum to censor? Especially given the context that his demand is founded on opposing the content of Rogan's speech, and that he is attempting to leverage an authoritative power (Spotify) to unilaterally remove Rogan's published media and prevent it's distribution.
I am sure that you will agree that determining your own outcome is freedom but forcing an outcome for others is oppression.
Nobody in this thread was talking about the First Amendment. The concept of freedom of speech is much broader than its particular realization in US constitutional law.
I believe you're arguing semantics here.
When people say "freedom of speech", they're referencing (sometimes unknowingly) hundreds of years of discussion in philosophy, politics, etc. A big part of that debate is whether censorship of so-called "bad" ideas is a good thing or a bad thing for "the public".
One side here is trying to pressure, commercially and via public opinion, a big platform. They're trying to pressure this platform to not publish certain information because it is "bad". Of course they have a right to do so! But I think it should be fairly clear that they are the side that is "against" freedom of speech, because they are literally against Spotify publishing certain information.
What's more, this isn't happening without context. This is happening in a world in which there is a lively debate happening around whether platforms should be liable for content that they allow to be published, in a world in which increasingly people are hesitant to associate with other people for voicing opinions they don't like.
Would we have this discussion about free speech if Spotify invested 100 million in a neo-nazi? No, we’d be appalled about the money.
It’s always about the money.
There is. Rogan is not trying to remove Neil Young's music from anywhere.
I've heard this unfruitful line of argument too often recently. Besides being unfruitful, I think it is based on a subtle fallacy/diversion.
The idea of free expression reasonably includes the right to criticize the principle itself. For example, in the US, you absolutely have the legal right to criticize the First Amendment. However, by doing so you would rightly be labelled as being against free expression.
If you like free expression, I think you should be cheering for Spotify and Rogan in this case.
Young had (nearly) no expectation of causing change. There's a possibility he thought this really would, right now, have enacted change, but I highly doubt he was so deluded. Young simply knew he couldn't be party to such a system, and said he was unwilling to remain affiliated with it in it's current dangerous fallen state.
I very much disagree. We could be a bit more accurate/pedantic by saying "he's trying to mount pressure to remove Rogan's podcast from Spotify" instead, but that doesn't change much.
> not be on a platform with people he perceived as ultra-shitty & socially-ruinous.
I cancelled my Spotify a long time ago, but I don't think it's much of a social platform. If you don't want to interact with Rogan, you simply can. I think you could even mute an artist, so Spotify wouldn't even suggest their content to you.
You’d have every right to rethink your association with that platform, and demand they not air the neo-nazis if they want to have you on.
This is not about free speech. It’s about freedom of association. You can’t force Neil Young to be associated with Joe Rogan if he doesn’t want to, and you can’t argue he doesn’t have a right to tell Spotify they can’t have both of them.
I'm not sure I agree. Young and Mitchell (how many decades ago were they culturally relevant?) are certainly free to participate on Spotify or not. They certainly cannot be forced to. However, if Rogan were booted from Spotify based on their threats (or others), he would certainly be a loser.
Further, if someone demands a second party take some action against a third party by making a quid pro quo threat, that is not clearly protected speech. If the threat involves revealing defamatory information, it constitutes blackmail; if the threat involves criminal harm, it is extortion; and if the threat involves breach of contract, it may be tortious interference, a civil tort. This is not to argue that Mitchell & Young are committing a crime, because they clearly aren't (though they may possibly be perpetrating a civil tort against Rogan depending on his contractual terms with Spotify and their demands), but that threats are not necessarily protected speech in the same category as merely making–or withholding–personal self-expression.
We're talking about them now.
> threats
They didn't threaten. Young directed his management to remove his music. Mitchell said she decided to remove hers. Is your problem they said why?
Not as artists that have anything currently to say, though. We're talking about them as people who are trying to keep someone else from talking.
We're talking about them as people who just said something.
Young sold half his music rights for $150 million last year. He signed a deal with SiriusXM within days after he left Spotify. Mitchell won a Grammy in 2016 and was nominated this year. Their music continued to be relevant to someone obviously.
I didn't say you didn't.
> I'll leave it up to you to decide if that constitutes a threat.
It doesn't. A threat is an signal of intent before an action. Young jumped to the action.
What Young said is more of an opening offer of a quid pro quo.
The overall point I was making stands, that freedom of speech (both the legal protection and the ethical principle) does not extend to coercive speech like it does to persuasive and expressive speech.
If some artist simply said, "Take my music off of Spotify because I have no confidence in the platform," then that would clearly be fully protected. If another said, "Spotify has until Feb 1 to remove Joe Rogan, or I'm pulling my catalog until they do," I think that'd be a lot more risky, especially if the artist had prominence.
Tortious interference requires the defendant's conduct was illegal in some other way apparently. In California at least.[1]
[1] https://www.bonalaw.com/insights/legal-resources/what-are-th...
Yes, they can protest. But they can't demand to shut up others (Rogan) which is what they seem to be doing.
Personally, people should double down on their protest, hope others join against Joe Rogan's batshit insane science.
But, I will never stand behind people wanting to deny him the exact rights they're exercising. Young and others are doing exactly that. Isn't it bullying?
They did.
> But, I will never stand behind people wanting to deny him the exact rights they're exercising. Young and others are doing exactly that.