Joe Rogan and the Freedom of Speech

[Brian4Liberty]

Joe Rogan and the Freedom of Speech
By Andrew P. Napolitano - February 10, 2022

...For two and a half centuries, the concept of free speech has bedeviled the United States.

The Framers suffered under a British colonial regime that punished speech critical of the British monarch. Yet, shortly after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, in which the First Amendment expressly commands that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which criminalized speaking maliciously about the government.

During the War Between the States, President Abraham Lincoln used the military to arrest and incarcerate without trial thousands of newspaper editors and journalists in the North who were critical of his decisions during the war.

During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson used the precursor to the FBI to arrest those who read the Declaration of Independence aloud and sang German beer hall songs in front of draft registration offices. Wilson argued that the First Amendment only restrained Congress, not the president as commander in chief. His Department of Justice successfully prosecuted folks who spoke out against American involvement in the war.
...
It was not until 1969 that government prosecution of speech came to a grinding halt when the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that all innocuous speech is absolutely protected, and all speech is innocuous when there is time for more speech to rebut it.
...
But the First Amendment only insulates speech from the government’s reach. It does not insulate it from private reach. Stated differently, if your speech offends the government, today it cannot sue or prosecute you. But, if you work for a private entity, your boss can punish you for speech that transgresses regulations in the workplace.

All of this is background to the present public drama involving the podcaster Joe Rogan. Rogan is the king of the podcasting hill. He has far more viewers and listeners than anyone else in the business. And so, he is a target of those who hate his ideas.

Rogan has licensed his podcasts to Spotify. Spotify does not produce Rogan’s show. It does not create his work, choose his guests or write his scripts. It merely makes Rogan’s show available to its paying customers.

Some of its customers and some of its other licensees have announced that they are offended by Rogan’s tone, his choice of words and what some of his guests have said. This began a few weeks ago when Rogan, who is a champion of personal liberty, interviewed two physicians who argued against the prevailing attitudes of the government, Big Pharma and medical elites about vaccines and face masks.

Suddenly, because of what his guests have said, Rogan became anathema, and lefties wanted him removed from Spotify. Put aside the financial consequences of such a removal — the Spotify/Rogan deal is worth more than $100 million — the activists who want Rogan silenced prefer that there be no public dialogue on health care because they hate and fear the speech that liberates.

Stated differently, some entertainers who have also licensed their work to Spotify, and their fans who subscribe to Spotify, are offended when they hear Rogan’s guests with whom they disagree, and they want him silenced.

Is there a right not to be offended? Of course not.

The freedom of speech, however, is a natural right. It comes from within each of us. Its essence is that individuals have a natural right to think as we wish and say what we think and listen to whomever we choose, and we don’t need the approval of the government or a consensus of the loudest.

To those who want to silence Rogan, just imagine what this mess of a country would be like if the loudest voices could silence all others. Freedom thrives on the clash and free flow of ideas. Since 1969, we have succeeded in keeping the government out of the business of censoring and punishing speech; now we must keep the mob out.

Do the Rogan haters really want those bad old days to return? I ask this because the folks who hate and fear Rogan’s ideas really hate and fear his freedom — and their next step will be to use the government to silence him. It is short steps from hatred to silencing to punishing speech.
...
More: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/02/...dom-of-speech/

[Ender]

Joe Rogan and the Freedom of Speech
By Andrew P. Napolitano - February 10, 2022

AMEN!

[Sonny Tufts]

Does Judge Nap not believe in the right to boycott (including secondary boycotts like the one against Spotify)?

Yes, Rogan and his guests have the right to speak freely, but so do the people who don't like what he and his guests say, and they have every right to express their displeasure, to stop doing business with Spotify, and to urge others to do so as well. Isn't that how a free market is supposed to work?

So far as I know, the only secondary boycotts that the law prohibits are those conducted by labor unions (although there's a bill backed by Biden and the unions that would remove this ban).

[Anti Federalist]

Does Judge Nap not believe in the right to boycott (including secondary boycotts like the one against Spotify)?

Yes, Rogan and his guests have the right to speak freely, but so do the people who don't like what he and his guests say, and they have every right to express their displeasure, to stop doing business with Spotify, and to urge others to do so as well. Isn't that how a free market is supposed to work?

So far as I know, the only secondary boycotts that the law prohibits are those conducted by labor unions (although there's a bill backed by Biden and the unions that would remove this ban).

You have the right to turn it off. You have the right to suggest other people turn it off.

You do not have the right to collude with government and other hyper-mega-corps to target specific speech which you want silenced, by using financial terrorism or threats of government persecution.

[Anti Federalist]

AMEN!

Glad to see the judge came down on the right side of this one.

[kahless]

Does Judge Nap not believe in the right to boycott (including secondary boycotts like the one against Spotify)?

Yes, Rogan and his guests have the right to speak freely, but so do the people who don't like what he and his guests say, and they have every right to express their displeasure, to stop doing business with Spotify, and to urge others to do so as well. Isn't that how a free market is supposed to work?

So far as I know, the only secondary boycotts that the law prohibits are those conducted by labor unions (although there's a bill backed by Biden and the unions that would remove this ban).

I agree and if the right has a problem because they think monopolies are too powerful and censoring content then they should support actually enforcing anti-trust laws or lower the bar on application of them.

The thing is so ridiculous since Rogan does not even need Spotify. With his wealth and following he could have simply built his own platform or used another. Rumble offered him 100 million, there is competition, so this is really a non-issue.

This is people getting upset because a guy they like that appears as a regular Joe but who is worth 100+ million is in his own personal content dispute with a multi-billion dollar company HE signed a contract with. Why even care about that. That is his problem, not ours.

If he had any integrity or interest in supporting free speech he would have had it baked into the contract that they could not censor his content and/or HE should not have pulled the content down. People will say he did not know any better as if he did not have a team of lawyers that did know any better to sign a 100 million dollar contract.

Again, here we have people attributing their own belief system to Joe Rogan when he does not really support such a belief system when it comes down to choosing free speech or enriching himself.

[A Son of Liberty]

You have the right to turn it off. You have the right to suggest other people turn it off.

You do not have the right to collude with government and other hyper-mega-corps to target specific speech which you want silenced, by using financial terrorism or threats of government persecution.

It's yet another example of how the quote-unquote two sides of the cultural divide no longer have a common set of shared values any longer.

There was a time when most Americans believed in the aphorism, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." Now? No longer so... the hard left have chosen to silence, rather than to debate.

So, Sonny is right - the free market does indeed allow for protest and boycotts. But that doesn't make it right.

[Brian4Liberty]

Does Judge Nap not believe in the right to boycott (including secondary boycotts like the one against Spotify)?
...

You tell us. Did you read the article? Is there something specific in the article that you are referring to?

[otherone]

Does Judge Nap not believe in the right to boycott (including secondary boycotts like the one against Spotify)?

Yes, Rogan and his guests have the right to speak freely, but so do the people who don't like what he and his guests say, and they have every right to express their displeasure, to stop doing business with Spotify, and to urge others to do so as well. Isn't that how a free market is supposed to work?

Supposed to. Until The WH applies pressure.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/psaki-...tucker-carlson

[Okie RP fan]

Does Judge Nap not believe in the right to boycott (including secondary boycotts like the one against Spotify)?

Yes, Rogan and his guests have the right to speak freely, but so do the people who don't like what he and his guests say, and they have every right to express their displeasure, to stop doing business with Spotify, and to urge others to do so as well. Isn't that how a free market is supposed to work?

So far as I know, the only secondary boycotts that the law prohibits are those conducted by labor unions (although there's a bill backed by Biden and the unions that would remove this ban).

I think this line of thinking was appropriate about 10 years ago.

Nowadays, we all know what's going on. We all know that this isn't the pretty picture that's being painted. We have an all out assault on speech and thoughts that aren't approved by the woke mob and/or the deep state. It's that simple.

I'd like to tell everyone we're beyond the old "it's a free market, take your speech elsewhere if you get canceled" or "it's a company's right to do that, go somewhere else."

The problem is this: we're running out of other places to go to. We are being cornered.

[kahless]

I think this line of thinking was appropriate about 10 years ago.

Nowadays, we all know what's going on. We all know that this isn't the pretty picture that's being painted. We have an all out assault on speech and thoughts that aren't approved by the woke mob and/or the deep state. It's that simple.

I'd like to tell everyone we're beyond the old "it's a free market, take your speech elsewhere if you get canceled" or "it's a company's right to do that, go somewhere else."

The problem is this: we're running out of other places to go to. We are being cornered.

No one should give a $#@! about the woke mob. Why consume their bull$#@! when you do not have to when there are a variety of free market alternatives you can chose from. This is all about people wanting to be accepted by people that hate you, they hate your beliefs and free speech.

The fact is Rogan got offered 100 million to go to Rumble. The free market is there. The man also has the wealth to start his own platform. If people have a beef with missing content then it should be with Rogan who chose to remove his own content to appease people as well as to satisfy the contract that HE signed.

What it comes down to is people being fooled into shilling for Rogan since they think he chose to have all his content and his 100 million. A contract which he signed with a team of lawyers knowing full well the content issues which he himself satisfied by pulling off content himself.

* this should not be taken as an endorsement of anything Joe has said.

[Okie RP fan]

Rogan got offered 100 million to go to Rumble. The free market is obviously there. The man also has the wealth to start his own platform. *The problem is with the likes of Joe Rogan that removed his own content to appease people as well as to satisfy the contract that HE signed.

What it comes down to is really is people being fooled into shilling for Rogan so he can have all his content and his 100 million. Which he signed a contact with a team of lawyers knowing full well the content issues which he himself satisfied by pulling off content himself.

* this should not be taken as an endorsement of anything Joe has said.

Honestly, I'm not even a fan of Rogan and I intended for my response to be "in general" as opposed to just about Rogan.
I get your points, but when we take the 30,000 feet approach and peer down at what's going on, I don't think we can just sit back and debate "oh, that's the free market. Get over it or start your own." Oddly enough, I've seen the left take this approach more and more because THEY are dictating the terms and are taking over companies.

For 90% + of people in the country who don't have the resources Joe has, they can't do that. Take me for example: my company has gone all woke. I can provide examples, but just trust me on this. I have to sit back and accept it or "find somewhere else" if I don't like it. Well, easier said than done when I have x amount of variables to consider. Like I said above, we're being pushed into a corner until we accept full terms of whatever this crackdown is a part of: communism, woke mob nonsense, deep state, etc.
So until I can start my own company, I have to sit down and STFU and accept their terms. This wasn't a problem 5 or 6 years ago for me.

[kahless]

Honestly, I'm not even a fan of Rogan and I intended for my response to be "in general" as opposed to just about Rogan.
I get your points, but when we take the 30,000 feet approach and peer down at what's going on, I don't think we can just sit back and debate "oh, that's the free market. Get over it or start your own." Oddly enough, I've seen the left take this approach more and more because THEY are dictating the terms and are taking over companies.

For 90% + of people in the country who don't have the resources Joe has, they can't do that. Take me for example: my company has gone all woke. I can provide examples, but just trust me on this. I have to sit back and accept it or "find somewhere else" if I don't like it. Well, easier said than done when I have x amount of variables to consider. Like I said above, we're being pushed into a corner until we accept full terms of whatever this crackdown is a part of: communism, woke mob nonsense, deep state, etc.
So until I can start my own company, I have to sit down and STFU and accept their terms. This wasn't a problem 5 or 6 years ago for me.

I hear what you are saying and all I am saying it is the wrong hill and person to fight on.

There is a fairly large entertainment company I no longer work for that was requiring employees to participate in the LGBT parade and participate in advocacy, holding signs, etc. $#@! that and I am glad I was out of there before that happened. You pay me to do a job and as far as I am concerned your political belief system should not play any role in that.

With that said I do not care about what LGBT do and it is none of my business what consenting adults do in their bedroom. It is none of my business what anyone's beliefs are as long as it does not effect me and you are not harming people or kids.

btw - just realized the post you replied to I had not realized I posted before I heavily edited it.

[Sonny Tufts]

You tell us. Did you read the article? Is there something specific in the article that you are referring to?

I read the entire article, and this is what bothered me:

Since 1969, we have succeeded in keeping the government out of the business of censoring and punishing speech; now we must keep the mob out.

How does he propose to keep the mob from exercising its right to boycott? He doesn’t say.

Oh sure, he acknowledges the right not to listen to Rogan (a primary boycott), but he doesn’t address the right to urge others to boycott Spotify (a secondary boycott) which, if successful, would involve a mob.

He's absolutely correct when he says, “their next step will be to use the government to silence him. It is short steps from hatred to silencing to punishing speech.“ But note what he doesn’t say: that this is happening now. Of course, many on this site who are viruently anti-government or who see conspiracies everywhere will strongly disagree. A government that passed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act doesn’t seem like one that is trying to censor speech.

I agree with Napolitano that the government should never get involved in silencing speech (there are obvious exceptions involving defamation, among others*). Nor should government put pressure on any person or private entity to do so (and I’m not naïve enough to believe this doesn’t happen). But I don’t accept the notion that just because a corporation is created by governmental franchise it necessarily means that it’s a governmental agent.

* I wish that people would stop misusing Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s dicta about shouting “Fire!” in a theatre, as Napolitano did. What Holmes actually said was, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” Too many people (including Napolitano) always seem to forget the parts about falsely shouting fire and causing a panic. You’d think a former judge would know better.

[donnay]

The top owner of Spotify is also the top owner of Moderna?
https://www.brighteon.com/1b0b44a1-8...b-3d25de0ac9d4

[Brian4Liberty]

I read the entire article, and this is what bothered me:



How does he propose to keep the mob from exercising its right to boycott? He doesn’t say.

Oh sure, he acknowledges the right not to listen to Rogan (a primary boycott), but he doesn’t address the right to urge others to boycott Spotify (a secondary boycott) which, if successful, would involve a mob.

He's absolutely correct when he says, “their next step will be to use the government to silence him. It is short steps from hatred to silencing to punishing speech.“ But note what he doesn’t say: that this is happening now. Of course, many on this site who are viruently anti-government or who see conspiracies everywhere will strongly disagree. A government that passed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act doesn’t seem like one that is trying to censor speech.

I agree with Napolitano that the government should never get involved in silencing speech (there are obvious exceptions involving defamation, among others*). Nor should government put pressure on any person or private entity to do so (and I’m not naïve enough to believe this doesn’t happen). But I don’t accept the notion that just because a corporation is created by governmental franchise it necessarily means that it’s a governmental agent.

* I wish that people would stop misusing Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s dicta about shouting “Fire!” in a theatre, as Napolitano did. What Holmes actually said was, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” Too many people (including Napolitano) always seem to forget the parts about falsely shouting fire and causing a panic. You’d think a former judge would know better.

"How does he propose to keep the mob from exercising its right to boycott?"

I didn't interpret it to be a suggestion to prevent boycotts. I took his statement about stopping the mob to be a set-up for:

Do the Rogan haters really want those bad old days to return? I ask this because the folks who hate and fear Rogan’s ideas really hate and fear his freedom — and their next step will be to use the government to silence him. It is short steps from hatred to silencing to punishing speech.

In other words, beware the mob because they will want to use government to silence speech. And a reminder to the mob that they once defended free speech, and their desire for censorship is a two edged sword that will soon be cutting them.