Comment by lalos | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lalos | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

One thing is free speech and another is giving a platform to dubious characters for them to promote their views unchallenged. What's the risk? you might be smart enough to know better but other's will use Rogan's vouching of X personality to validate their view points "well he was invited to Rogan's show so he must be important and must be listened to! have YOU been featured in Rogan's show?". I'll remind you that a good portion of the population doesn't even think vaccines work and that they do damage, don't think wearing masks help, believe in 'staged false flag' events to the point of bullying victims. The internet has allowed anyone to become a 'soft journalist' but completely ignoring what made journalism work, ethics (depending on the org, of course). See related (specially points 4 & 5): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standard...

Honestly I expect that as time goes and people wisen up, the more serious and legit a personality is the less likely they will be to accept an invite to that show until it is just bro-ey comedians and controversial personalities that need a steady flow of more supporters so they will say yes to the opportunity to expose their ideas unchallenged. Controversies sell well and Rogan is aware of that, at the end of it he only cares about growing his wealth and not freedom of speech.

BTW, I believe almost no one wants to change the amendments and remove freedom of speech. Those characters will still have the means to communicate their ideas and will be protected by the law, matter fact I myself have donated to ACLU who have defended the KKK in the court of law for the higher purpose of defending freedom of speech and rightly so. See https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-em-defends-kkks-rig...

I'm assuming fans of Rogan will be happy to read my comment since as Rogan promotes, we should give a platform to anyone or any idea and let people decide by themselves. Or that doesn't apply to his dissenters?

> One thing is free speech and another is giving a platform to dubious characters for them to promote their views unchallenged

Those are literally the same thing. Free speech means ideas compete on their merits in a marketplace of ideas and no central authority gets to decide which ideas are worth considering. You can be against free speech --- many people are these days --- but you don't get to claim to be in favor of free speech but not this speech or that speech.

Freedom of speech is the right to not be persecuted/sued/shut-down/jailed by the government. Emphasis on government. It's a free market place of ideas, you are allowed to say anything but you are also allowed to suffer the consequences of what you said and be confronted about it by other peers. It's not called "freedom of speech and receive unconditional support and applause". People are free to criticize Rogan, Spotify, their guests, your comment, my comment, etc. Any individual or company is allowed to decide on their contracts or thru whatever means on how to handle this situation that turn into public relation issues. No one is saying throw Rogan and all his guests in jail, they are just exercising their freedom of speech in saying "hey do we really want this partnership, and why?"

If they're trying to interfere in his contract with their employer it's tortuous interference Maybe they just need to have freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences and it will all work out.

> tortuous interference

I think you mean tortious interference. Or maybe you were right the first time.

Autocorrect

False. Neither freedom of speech nor censorship are tied to the concept of a government. They are much more fundamental and basic than that. Additionally large tech platforms control enough of societal discourse that they function as defector public squares. Censorship by tech companies is as effective as censorship by governments.

Here is the first amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Or to quote the Supreme Court of Canada:

> The protection of freedom of expression is premised upon fundamental principles and values that promote the search for and attainment of truth, participation in social and political decision-making and the opportunity for individual self-fulfillment through expression.

There is a legalistic sense of free expression/speech in various countries, yes. But it is also a philosophy and worldview that goes far beyond a legalistic sense. One that emphasizes toleration of dissent and competing views as a process to find truth, and one that recognizes the inherent importance of expression in human actualization and dignity. In that broader sense, the state/non-state distinction starts to fade away.

The concept of free speech is larger than the first amendment. They are not synonymous.

Free speech is not defined by the first amendment.

Why do you care what Rogan says? With the way you describe him it’s clear you don’t like him. Don’t pay attention to him, then. The problem is people today who go against the grain are vilified by these bleeding heart outraged critics who have nothing better to do than attempt to cancel people. People are fed up with it.

I like him, I'm supporting his idea of giving anyone the right to express their ideas. Therefore, I'm interested in the people that also have their concerns about his shows and Spotify's business decisions and they must be heard/read, why are you intolerant to other views and want to censor them by suggesting people to turn their heads? That sounds like canceling to me and btw I don't want to cancel anybody.

Interfering with someone else's contracts is tortuous interference. You do t have a right to that no matter who employs you.

That is some dubious reading of the law. JR can sue whomever he wants to for it if he thinks it happened, it's not like he cannot afford lawyers or something.

A suggestion to ignore something is not censorship.

You are conflating speech with the actual censorship of speech.

Is this a George Orwell parody account?

If I ignore him, I don’t have information to formulate a view point about him therefore its a suggestion to shut up and censor me. I thought Rogan espouses differing points of view, what’s going? Or only when you support him unconditionally?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com