Hacker News Reader

Comment by aphroz | Hacker News Reader

I agree for the web im general, but I don't think it applies in this case, because he was free to say whatever he wanted, but when he agreed on the deal he also agreed to represent Spotify, and therefore all its employees. It's like a sponsorship.

View on HN

Don't make excuses for employees demanding their megacorp do censorship. This should be unacceptable behaviour contract or no.

>Don't make excuses for employees demanding their megacorp do censorship.

That's within their right of free speech, and Joe Rogan has equal free speech rights to make counter-demands. You believe in free speech don't you?

Unless you have a union and a contract with your employer, you’re an at will employee with no recourse (at least in the US). You’re free to your opinion, but also to find employment elsewhere if you take issue with your organization’s partnerships. Freedom of speech doesn’t translate to guaranteed employment while demanding editorial control of your employer’s platform.

It should be noted that union organizing activities are protected in the US from employer retaliation.

No offense, but this strawman is super telling. I don't advocate for the censorship of these employees, even if I do find what they're doing morally reprehensible.

If you feel it should be "unacceptable behavior contract or no" for them to express their right to free speech simply because you disagree with their politics then yes you are advocating censorship.

It's possible to hold two beliefs at once. I detest their ideology but I wouldn't dream of censoring them. If you're projecting the belief that everyone you disagree with should be censored, then you should take a look in the mirror.

I'm saying their ideology is unacceptable (anyone calling for censorship should be shunned), not the fact they're speaking their mind.

Spotify also agreed not to censor him if he came to their platform. If you want to get into who agreed to what.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com