That’s not exactly a fair interpretation. Neil first asked Spotify to censor Rogan, then removed himself from the platform. Attempting to suppress someone else’s speech is definitely not being pro-free speech, in fact it’s complete opposite.
That’s not exactly a fair interpretation. Neil first asked Spotify to censor Rogan, then removed himself from the platform. Attempting to suppress someone else’s speech is definitely not being pro-free speech, in fact it’s complete opposite.
There's a difference between censoring and enabling.
He's trying to cancel Spotify.
But censorship over dialogue is always a short sighted solution and it turns people from colleagues who disagree into enemies.
There's been a 14 point shift in the United States from Democrat to Republican in the past YEAR.
One of if not the biggest political shift in recorded history since the early 1900s.
And Republicans no longer view Democrats as disagreeing colleagues but as enemies to be eliminated.
Trump is now having some of the biggest crowds in political history.
2022 is republicans are predicted to take over the house and the Senate.
2024 Trump will win again.
All over the country people who believe the election was stolen are running for political office in positions to manage voting.
I personally think the Republicans will make major changes in the political process to ensure their permanent control even if it undermines the foundation of the country.
Our two parties are going to be flavors of Republicanism.
And it will be their right as well.
https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q...
Until it’s the government doing it, it’s not a problem.
Why it has to be mutually exclusive like an XOR operation? In a civilized discourse it is OK to have both points of view present at the same time, so that a listener can listen to one or both or none. By insisting on just one (in whatever context) we diminish our intellectual pursuits. Is it now all about cheap publicity stunts?
A racist is within their rights to publically discuss their views. I will happily argue that that is the way it should be until the heat death of the universe. But, importantly, you will never catch me saying the they're a decent person or they're doing the right thing. Young can be against basic human rights without exceeding the bounds of his own, but being authoritarian is still morally abhorrent.
Refusing to participate is far from being "authoritarian".
By that measure, any scientist refusing to engage with a crook, would be labeled as a fascist, when there are very good reasons for him or her not to do so.
It's a moral condemnation. It also can mean someone using authority to coerce people.
I agree with you that Neil Young ought not to be accused of either of these. He obviously has the moral right to control his own creations. He obviously doesn't have the authority to get rid of Rogan, based on what just happened. He obviously doesn't have the power to completely shut up Rogan.
However, what seems true to me is that he disagrees with actions and speech of other people and has chosen not to try to convince them of his opinions through speech, but to fight them by other means.
This fact pattern seems to me like a possible definition of "authoritarian" that some people could be using, without the other baggage.
If Neil Young pulled his music from Spotify on a whim, sure, he "refused to participate". That's not what happened. Neil Young leveraged his art to limit the someone else's basic right to self-expression. If someone refused to put music on Spotify because Spotify has Jewish musicians on their platform, would we call them an antisemite, or would we say, "there's no obligation to put your music anywhere, so that's fine"?
You may want to look into what the term "authoritarian" actually means.
>favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.
So I'll ask that you do a little work and point me at the definition you'd prefer.
These musicians aren't bullies, and they aren't doing anything like that. They're just saying "if your platform presents an image we don't like, or conducts itself in way that appears genuinely harmful to others -- we're not going to lend our credibility to it."
That's all. And it is perfectly within their free speech rights to do so.
But morally, it goes against free speech and aligns with fascism.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Young really did say "get rid of Rogan or I'll leave". How is that any different from saying "I'm leaving because you won't get rid of Rogan"? Or "I'm leaving, but I'll consider coming back if you get rid of Rogan"?
In all of those cases, the end result (and the negotiating power of all parties) is essentially the same, so what makes one "free speech" and another "anti-free speech"?
Bias. If they disagree with Rogan in the first place, not on this specific subject but in a multiple different angle, although in modern days that tends to be politics, then they just need to find a narrative to make sure what they are doing is good.
Gruber is extremely bias towards Apple. ( USB-C, AirPod sold at Cost, big.LITTLE, Unified Memory etc... ) So a narrative against Spotify wouldn't hurt.
And actually conspiring against this guy just fuels the conspiracy theories out there.
Spotify choosing to end their contract with Joe Rogan over this wouldn't infringe on his free speech. Having the right to say whatever you want doesn't mean any given company needs to let you broadcast it on their platform.
>Spotify choosing to end their contract with Joe Rogan over this wouldn't infringe on his free speech. Having the right to say whatever you want doesn't mean any given company needs to let you broadcast it on their platform.
It's not government censorship, but it's still censorship.
Freedom of speech as a concept isn't just limited to the first amendment.
No, it's free speech, not censorship. Freedom of association, choosing NOT to say something, to NOT spend your own (including your organization's own) private resources supporting something, and advocating others don't either, is itself integral to Free Speech. You can't support a specific stance without NOT supporting all the ones opposed to it. And the idea isn't just to howl into the wind, it's to convince the rest of us hooting apes about it too! Free Speech is inherently a social endeavor to convince other minds which will result in their altering their behavior (including how they allocate their personal resources and power). You don't need it alone on an island.
>Freedom of speech as a concept isn't just limited to the first amendment.
Actually it pretty much is, or at least is limited to the area of "force". The point of free speech is to keeping the seeking of truth and debates around values to the social and economic circles vs those of force. Because we simply cannot trust coercive force to not solidify things into very bad positions that then stick across broad swaths of the population. There has to be room for people to advocate against even broad consensus, if they believe it enough. But within those spheres it's open season, a constant ever shifting dynamic back and forth that never ends. Indeed making sure "it never ends" is the essence of free speech.
And just because even broad consensus can sometimes be wrong doesn't mean it's not often right. The people arguing against it may well be horrible people. Them being shunned, argued back against, and denied other people's support is Free Speech working 100% as intended. If they truly believe it they will just have to keep at it, and it may well take decades to shift society's overall views. They may fail, and it may be expensive. That's how it is. The point is that force can't be used to completely crush all potential to change minds.
Freedom of speech is a principle--not the bare minimum allowable under the first amendment.
You don't agree with the principle of freedom of speech if you support shunning from debate anyone who holds an opinion you disagree with. That said, you don't have to agree with the principle of free speech. And the freedom of speech / association gives you the right to shun people. But your behavior is contrary to the principle of freedom of speech.
Statement and actions that are against freedom of speech are still allowed under freedom of speech. That's not some GOTCHA against the freedom of speech. Young should be allowed to do what he's doing. But he should fully expect to be called a censoring blacklister.
You can join a political group advocating for censorship. That's attempted censorship even if its allowed under freedom of speech.
So yes, you can exercise your freedom of speech to speak against freedom of speech. There is no contradiction.
Yes, the principle that force should not be used to compel speech since no single oracle can be trusted to it. Not that all ideas and values are equal, and indeed on the contrary the entire point of freedom of speech is that they aren't. Freedom of speech is a process, a system to try to let us grope our way towards truth and better values and adapt to changing circumstances, to maintain a dynamic equilibrium that leaves open the chance we're wrong or that what makes sense now won't in the future. Culling out the crap is a huge part of what it's all about.
>But your behavior is contrary to the principle of freedom of speech.
Nope, yours is! A mushy "everything is the same" implicitly negates any need for protection.
Culling out whatever you think is crap by organizing a boycott unless people literally ban that content is censorship.
No, it's free speech. It's literally engaging in freedom of association yourself and speech to try to convince other people to exercise their freedoms of association and speech towards ideas and values one considers important. And it isn't without risk or personal cost either. Boycotts necessarily involve sacrificing some value the entity offers. If other people won't go along with it because they don't agree obviously it goes nowhere. Even if lots of people do go along with it, the entity people are trying to convince may well reject it anyway and just take the hit, or calculate they can outlast it, or argue back and convince people the other way.
You're arguing that free speech shouldn't cover trying to convince anyone else of your own values, or that people shouldn't be allowed to act on said values if they are won over and wish to. That's wild stuff.
Fair enough; but it's only one principle. It doesn't override all the other principles. Some people from the land of the 1st Amendment seem to think it does.
> not the bare minimum allowable under the first amendment.
The 1st Amendment is not a "bare minimum" - AFAIAA it's the most maximalist free-speech legal provision in the world.
Someone upthread spoke of "cancelling Spotify". Cancelling is about denying people a platform, no? How is Young denying Spotify a platform, by encouraging others to stay away from Spotify? That's called a boycott, which amounts to individuals choosing freely what to do with their time and money. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
It's not bare minimum with regard to its restrictions on government action. But it doesn't apply to (and is not meant to) apply to other institutions.
For example, nobody would anti-discrimination principles by the 14th amendment and conclude that its therefore not discrimination for a private citizen to discriminate against minorities.
[1]you can certain shun them from actual organizations that aren't meant to be open platforms for everyone. Most organizations are not open platforms, and their employers represent the organization.
Well, that's an interesting sentence-construction. How does person A shun person B from group X? "Shunning" isn't normally a thing that you do to someone from something.
IOW, If you are shunned by society as a whole, then it is society as a whole that has shunned you.
[Edit] And if Spotify is shunned by its users, it's the users that shunned it; nobody shunned the users "from" Spotify.
There is no contraction. A call for censorship is allowed under freedom of speech.
I would never force spotify to platform anyone they don't want to. But I will criticize those who demand others blacklist.
Answer this: Was the Hollywood self-enforced blacklist of communists censorship?
Fortunately Neil Young lacks the power to enforce his view, but make no doubt, his view is censorship.
Whether you succeed or not depends on other things (in particular, an individual’s power).
All else is a red herring. As the saying goes, ”In the Soviet Union, we have freedom of speech. But in the US, you have freedom after* speech.”
You can't mean that seriously. If I successfully form the intention to stop someone speaking, but fail to carry through (perhaps because I don't own a police force), are you really saying that I've succeeded in censoring them?
It seems to be the fashion these days to construct arguments based on redefining words. If "censorship" is a kind of intention, then there doesn't appear to be much wrong with censorship. You've redefined a word that is generally considered to refer to something bad, to mean something that isn't bad. That's sort-of OK, but it means that we have to put a glossary of definitions at the top of anything we say.
Intent matters. Fortunately, Neil Young failed.
Same with censorship.
That is a pretty extreme view of what "free speech" entitles, to the point of significantly restricting the free speech of (in this case) Niel Young to preserve Joe Rogan's.
If I walk out of the room because someone is spitting nonsense is that censorship?
That is a far cry from performing at the same event or socializing in the same room. I would 100% support Young if that was what he was objecting to.
But Young's situation is more like refusing to play on a university that doesn't shun someone he thinks is wrong. That's censorship.
*(not sure I'd call Rogan that but for lack of a better word)
If the Catholic Church organized a boycott of Amazon unless decided to de-platform controversial authors that is a clear example of censorship.
Isn't Rogan only on the one platform?
Apple and Amazon have Rogan's comedy specials.
But blacklisting people for political beliefs is quintessential censorship. Can't believe that has to be said.
Young is asking for him to be banned from Spotify.
I'm sure Young also objects to many political beliefs expressed by Rogan's guests, and probably Rogan himself, that's unrelated to what Young did or said.
Earnest misinformation cannot be an exception to freedom of speech without throwing away the entire concept. A lot of commonly accepted truths were dismissed as misinformation by the powers that be.
It doesn't even work as a practical matter. You get too many false positives--how many CDC facts have been called into question. They've even deliberately lied. Should bigTech have banned people saying masks work in April 2020 and ban people saying they don't in April 2021? And its not effective. At best, you are playing wackamole. And banning people from taking opposing positions just entrenches opposing view points.
If Donald Trump successfully lobbied bigTech to censor "misinformation" about covid, would you believe a fucking thing you heard from those sources?
I agree with this. It is a matter for the audience to decide what speech they will listen to, and how they will evaluate it. It is cause for regret thaat so many people lack the means to evaluate the utterances of crackpots. But you can't start to evaluate it if you haven't heard it; there are "forbidden views" that you won't hear on MSM or the big internet platforms.
I'm not a free-speech maximalist. Incitement to hatred or violence is forbidden here, and I'm cool with that. Lying, fakery and distortion are permitted (provided it's not in furtherance of selling stuff), and I'm OK with that too.
I'm not OK with a whole swath of views being suppressed without any process.
That's not what's happening with Young and Rogan. Rogan has been paid by Spotify for his podcast; if they decide to shut him down, well he has other platforms. And he gets to keep the money. There's no chance he'll be silenced.
I'm not OK with the way the word "censorship" is being bandied around here. Once upon a time, when email blocklists started to become popular, spammers accused MSPs of censorship, which was ludicrous. Nobody has a right to use the private property of others to exercise their free speech. You can say what you like, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone, and I don't have to stand next to you on the platform while you say it.
Spotify dropping Rogan would not have been censorship: Rogan would have been able to continue talking as much as he wanted, just like he was before his deal with Spotify.
Is there any form of consequences for speech that would not be censorship?
I don't buy this idea that stating firmly and publicly: "If you continue to host X on your platform, then I won't be associated with your platform" -- is equivalent to top-down, administrative censorship in the usual sense of the term. Which by most sources is specifically rooted in an exercise of state power (or of something more or less equivalent to it). Not the editorial decisions made by publishing entities.
Do people really not believe that the Information Age has fundamentally changed the axioms which underlie things like “only governments can censor” ?