Below is my column on the campaign to cancel Joe Rogan and his podcast. Various celebrities and artists have joined the movement for censoring Joe Rogan, including Mary Trump. The White House has called for even greater action from Spotify to limit or remove content. We have also heard the same false narrative that, since the First Amendment only covers government action, this is not by definition a free speech issue. The argument is entirely divorced from any understanding of free speech. As we have previously discussed, the First Amendment is not the full or exclusive embodiment of free speech. It addresses just one of the dangers to free speech posed by government regulation. Many of us view free speech as a human right. Corporate censorship of social media clearly impacts free speech, and replacing Big Brother with a cadre of Little Brothers actually allows for far greater control of free expression. When it comes to media, information or social media platforms, corporate censorship can have a devastating impact on free speech.
Here is the column:
“They can have Rogan or Young. Not both.” That ultimatum from singing legend Neil Young to Spotify had a justifiable sense of certainty about the choice. After all, it is a variation of the type of threats used successfully against a host of companies to cancel speakers, writers and performers. Young was soon joined by Joni Mitchell and others in the “if-you-listen-to-him-you-can’t listen-to-me” demand. They are the latest to join a growing number of journalists, academics and artists in favor of censorship. Then something happened … or, more accurately, something did not happen.
Spotify told Young to take the freedom train off Spotify. It was sticking with Rogan and, perhaps secondarily, free speech.
For Spotify, the choice between Rogan’s 11 million listeners or an aging rocker was economically clear, even with other artists threatening to pull their music from the platform. The music side of Spotify is reportedly not making much revenue, but Rogan and podcasts are a cash machine. Spotify now has 365 million subscribers and its advertising revenues have doubled with the help of the podcast market. Revenue from podcasts is up a staggering 627 percent on Spotify.
However, even if the company was not motivated by its better angels, that may actually be better news for free speech.
The free-fall of free speech has largely been due to greed. Companies see no profit in defending dissenting viewpoints. Now, for the first time, the economics may have actually worked against censorship and for free speech. At least in this instance, to paraphrase “Wall Street’s” Gordon Gekko, “Greed is good” for free speech.
The famous economist Arthur Cecil Pigou once explained that corporations are not “social” but market creatures moved by profits, not principles. No matter how “woke” many companies may appear, there is an economic calculation behind corporate action. Most companies yield to demands because it is wealth-maximizing. There was a calculation that woke statements or censorship policies would protect a company from protests while opposing customers would still want its product.
That calculation has been a disaster for free speech. The First Amendment only addresses the primary threat that existed in the 18th century against free speech: the government. It does not limit private companies, which have free speech rights like individuals. Activists and politicians used that blind spot to do indirectly what they could not do directly in censoring opposing viewpoints.
Democratic leaders, including President Biden, have encouraged companies to expand what they euphemistically call “content modification” to block dissenting views on vaccines, election integrity, global warming, gender identity and a range of other issues. Even the World Health Organization has embraced censorship campaigns to fight not the pandemic but the “infodemic.”
Censorship is in vogue. Prince Harry (who called the First Amendment “bonkers”) has supported Young in his quest to silence Rogan on Spotify. One’s commitment to a cause today is measured by one’s intolerance for opposing viewpoints.
As a result, social media companies and other corporations now regulate speech in the United States to a degree that an actual state media would struggle to replicate. Faced with a growing cancel culture, companies are scrubbing their platforms of dissenting viewpoints and converting forums into echo chambers.
In the use of private companies, the left has achieved an ignoble distinction. While liberal writers and artists were blacklisted and investigated in the 1950s, liberal activists have succeeded in censoring opposing views to a degree that would have made Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-Wis.) blush. Rather than burn books, they have simply gotten stores to ban them or blacklist the authors.
For these companies, there is no value to protecting the speech rights of dissenting voices with powerful politicians, academics, and even some in the media demanding more censorship.
But then they went after Rogan.
Rogan’s popularity is precisely due to the fact that he is uncensored in what he says. As many networks and newspapers have become more of an echo chamber, viewers and readers have fled en masse. Trust in the media has fallen to just 46 percent and as low as 40 percent in recent polling.
Where are people going for information? It seems many have gone to podcasts — and specifically to Joe Rogan, at least 11 million of them.
While Young reportedly relies on Spotify for 60 percent of his royalty income, Spotify does not rely on Young or other rock stars for its primary profits. It is the reverse of market conditions from just a couple years ago.
The problem with controlling speech is that it has to be complete; it doesn’t work if there are alternatives to echo-chambered media. Rogan’s podcast is one of the biggest. With 11 million listeners, he surpassed cable and network audiences as well as the readership of the largest papers. His program allows people across the political spectrum to speak freely, including those who question official positions on vaccines and treatments.
While Rogan has promised to be more careful in how information is presented on his show (and Spotify will add “advisories” on podcasts), his podcast survived the celebrity onslaught. As various investors seek to create free speech alternatives to Twitter and YouTube, there may be an emerging market for free speech products.
This is not the first failed effort to eliminate alternatives to mainstream media. Democratic Reps. Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney of California were widely criticized for a letter to cable carriers like AT&T asking why they are still allowing people to watch Fox News. (For the record, I appear as a Fox legal analyst). The two members of Congress stressed that “not all TV news sources are the same” and called the companies to account for their role in allowing such “dissemination.” Fox News has remained the most watched cable channel, topping even ESPN. That includes more primetime Democratic viewers of Fox than CNN.
Likewise, the effort of politicians like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to protect readers from what she considers to be poor book choices has failed. Warren wants companies like Amazon to change algorithms to steer readers away from books that she deems unhealthy or untrue. The problem is that people are still finding sources for uncensored authors. Former New York Times author Alex Berenson hit the top of Amazon’s Kindle Store with his recent book critical of COVID science and policies.
This does not mean that Joe Rogan is the new Thomas Paine or that this small skirmish is a turning point in the war over free speech. Indeed, the campaign continues against Spotify. However, with the explosion of corporate censorship, free speech advocates have begun to look at figures like Rogan as “super survivors,” people who seem to have natural immunities protecting them from an otherwise lethal threat. If we can replicate those economic antibodies, we just might be able to develop a protection against censorship and the cancel culture.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
“liberal activists have succeeded in censoring opposing views to a degree that would have made Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-Wis.) blush.”
That is right. On this blog and out in the world are little leftist Joe McCarthy’s censoring others in a manner that Joe McCarthy could never envision. They will all condemn Joe McCarthy. Will they condemn themselves?
Joe Rogan is ok. Most of his podcast are entertaining or sometimes it’s just pure bantering over an issue. But, there ARE legitimate arguments over the misinformation that is disseminated on his program and calls to censor him or condemn or artists pulling their music on Spotify is also…free speech.
Spotify has every right to decide whether to keep joe rogan or not. If I don’t agree or don’t like a particular guest on his pod cast I simply turn it off or just ignore it. HOWEVER, there IS an issue Turley has never mentioned, as far as I know. Free speech is not just the ability to say what you want. Having free speech is also knowing and understanding the responsibility that comes with it. Joe Rogan has indeed acknowledged that to a degree after being criticized for some of his podcasts spreading misinformation. Free speech doesn’t mean being free from the consequences of exercising it irresponsibly or recklessly. That’s why yelling fire in a crowded venue or joking about bombs at an airport is not protected speech. Those two examples are forms of misinformation that can cause harm. Spreading misinformation about COVID or the vaccines is just as harmful in a different context. So Turley’s criticism about “censorship” are misleading to a point.
A lot of people who are “just offering a different point of view” are indeed offering misinformation that is harmful. Just look at how conservatives are characterizing CRT. They are calling it harmful, racist, unpatriotic, indoctrination, etc. and they are actively censoring it, but Turley has been strangely silent about it. Books are being banned or removed from school libraries because they have “uncomfortable” content or it offends parents. Sounds like a free speech issue Turley should be deep into, but is still strangely silent. After all CRT or books about transgender teenagers or slaves experiencing brutality under white owners ARE a different point of view. Yet they are being banned or removed because it’s….uncomfortable. Isn’t that what free speech os about according to Turley?
But, there ARE legitimate arguments over the misinformation that is disseminated on his program and calls to censor him or condemn or artists pulling their music on Spotify is also…free speech.
First of all, if there are legitimate arguments over the information that is disseminated on his programs, then why the need to censor him? It’s the same absurd logic Col. Jessup used to transfer Private Santiago.
Kaffee: No, sir. You made it clear just a moment ago that your men never take matters into their own hands. Your men follow orders or people die. So Santiago shouldn’t have been in any danger at all, should he have, Colonel?
These calls for censorship are nothing more than a Code Red on people that will infect an audience with information they are capable of processing., all to maintain power and control over those that aren’t.
What we need is a national Covid debate that brings in the experts on both sides of the issues and let them make their case.
Olly: Excellent last sentence. (Can’t add anything else because I’m not familiar with “Jessup/Santiago.”)
Thanks Lin. It’s a reference to the movie, A Few Good Men.
Olly says:
“It’s a reference to the movie, A Few Good Men.”
I relate to Lieutenant Sam Weinberg? Who do you relate to? Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Markinson?
Olly, misinformation is not just information it’s false or inaccurate information deliberately intended to deceive or unintended due to ignorance.
Joe Rohan’s podcast often had “experts” peddling “information” that was inaccurate and harmful. But the question is is there really “both sides”?
CRT is also information. And there are legitimate arguments over it. So why are republicans censoring it or suppressing the idea? Shouldn’t students decide for themselves whether to consider the theories? Turley criticizes censorship of different views. CRT is also a different view and it’s being actively censored by republicans because it makes people, white people…feel guilty or ashamed. That’s a poor reason to censor CRT from students.
Many here deride “experts” just because they are experts, but trust other “experts” who just provide the point of view they agree with regardless of data or proof.
Fauci is demonized and dismissed because he IS an expert on viruses and how they behave. He’s spent decades studying and working on that field gaining detailed knowledge about viruses and disease. BUT, other “experts” such as Senator Rand Paul are trusted more because he’s deemed equally credible or more because he too is a doctor. Except he’s an eye doctor. Who is an expert on eye diseases, performs cataract surgery, and is an expert at saying, “better or worse”, “one or two”.
If an oncologist stated you have cancer but a dentist tells you you don’t because he’s also a doctor you’re trusting the dentist because he’s also a doctor and makes more sense despite not being an “expert” on oncology.
“Fauci is demonized and dismissed because he” is a glory-hungry, power-lusting fraud.
“He’s spent decades” doling out hundreds of millions of dollars looted from taxpayers, funding “science” in a communist *dictatorship*, and intimidating actual scientists into silence.
Fauci is *not* a scientist. He is the Czar of science.
misinformation is not just information it’s false or inaccurate information deliberately intended to deceive or unintended due to ignorance.
It’s not misinformation until it’s proven otherwise. You don’t prove it by censorship. An appeal to authority is only as good as the facts and evidence are to support their testimony. After 2 years of appealing to the authority of Fauci, the CDC and countless others that have “recommended” and then countered their own recommendations, the question people are looking for answers on is were these experts deliberately intending to deceive, or were they recommending out of ignorance?
CRT is also information.
That’s correct. And it’s countered by alternative information. Just like the Covid debate, when people evaluate all the information, they will make an informed decision on what they want. When it comes to their children, the teaching of “CRT” is not much different than forcing Covid vaccines in the classroom. Parents have every right to object and even prevent what they believe will harm their children.
Olly replies to Svelaz’s comment that “CRT is also information”:
“That’s correct. And it’s countered by alternative information. Just like the Covid debate, when people evaluate all the information, they will make an informed decision on what they want. When it comes to their children, the teaching of “CRT” is not much different than forcing Covid vaccines in the classroom. Parents have every right to object and even prevent what they believe will harm their children.”
1. After debating, do we ever agree at some point that something is false and/or harmful? Are we still debating whether second-hand smoke is harmful to non-smokers? Would it be responsible for Joe Rohan to interview someone who endorses the view that second-hand smoke is not harmful to, say, kids and advocates parents lighting up in their cars with their children and the windows closed?
2. CRT is currently being banned from some classrooms without the opportunity for the students to debate its pros and cons in the classroom. Recall that Turley would not ban the teaching of CRT as he found it valuable as a teaching aid.
After debating, do we ever agree at some point that something is false and/or harmful?
Ever? Yes.
Would it be responsible for Joe Ro
gan to interview someone who endorses the view that second-hand smoke is not harmful to, say, kids and advocates parents lighting up in their cars with their children and the windows closed?Yes. If there existed such an advocate, it would be responsible to have him make his case in a debate with others making theirs.
CRT is currently being banned from some classrooms
withoutbecause the opportunity for the students to debate its pros and cons in the classroom is not allowed.Recall that Turley would not ban the teaching of CRT as he found it valuable as a teaching aid.
Why would he? He wouldn’t ban the teaching of slavery, the holocaust or socialism either. They are valuable teaching aids.
Olly says:
“Yes. If there existed such an advocate, it would be responsible to have him make his case in a debate with others making theirs.”
Turley would disagree. Don’t you recall what he said about Trump’s discredited disinfectant musings?
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/04/24/foreseeable-misuse-trumps-suggestion-of-possible-use-of-disinfectant-in-the-blood-triggers-industry-warnings/
Turley would NOT criticize a network for refusing to re-broadcast this type of disinformation which is “dangerous for those who do rely on the President for information on the virus.”
You say:
“CRT is currently being banned from some classrooms because the opportunity for the students to debate its pros and cons in the classroom is not allowed.”
Why is CRT being banned?
Turley would NOT criticize a network for refusing to re-broadcast this type of disinformation which is “dangerous for those who do rely on the President for information on the virus.”
Why would he? Notice he’s not advocating for silencing the speech of someone. He’s advocating for “better” speech.
Why is CRT being banned?
We’ve gone from this isn’t being taught to why is it being banned?
Let’s say you suspected Christianity was being taught at your child’s school and were being told it wasn’t, would you be satisfied with the answer? Keep in mind they assert they are only teaching the theory of it at the college level. But upon further investigation, you discover it’s embedded in curriculum down to K-12 not just as theory, but in practical application. And your child is told his/her atheism is the root cause of all that is wrong with western civilization. When you voice objections, you’re being told to sit down and shut up, we’re the professionals and we know what’s best for our children in our classrooms.
So why do you think its being banned?
Olly,
“ We’ve gone from this isn’t being taught to why is it being banned?”
It isn’t being taught. That’s the problem. There’s deliberate misinformation that it is despite no evidence. Others, again thru misinformation, are claiming proof by conflating anything having to do with equality or diversity (DEI) as CRT which is not. But those intent on labeling anything they deem an attempt at “making white people as oppressors” is labeled CRT as an excuse to ban it. But as you said it is information and according to Turley it’s just a different point of view.
The banning part is being done WITHOUT the benefit of it being debated by students.
The question is still, why is it being banned? It’s a different point of view and republican legislatures and governors are actively censoring a different point of view. It’s the same thing with removing books from school libraries because they provide a different point of view.
“ Let’s say you suspected Christianity was being taught at your child’s school and were being told it wasn’t, would you be satisfied with the answer? Keep in mind they assert they are only teaching the theory of it at the college level. But upon further investigation, you discover it’s embedded in curriculum down to K-12 not just as theory, but in practical application. And your child is told his/her atheism is the root cause of all that is wrong with western civilization. When you voice objections, you’re being told to sit down and shut up, we’re the professionals and we know what’s best for our children in our classrooms.“
According to Turley it shouldn’t be banned. But an alternative to Christianity should then be allowed to be discussed too. Islam, satanism, Scientology, etc.
Kids aren’t being told to “sit down and shut up…”. That’s where misinformation is involved. It’s an excuse to justify banning it by those who are already intent on preventing a different point of view being discussed because it poses an uncomfortable idea that may be true.
It’s censorship with an excuse borne out of deliberate misinformation that according to Turley is wrong and the only remedy to that is more free speech not censorship.
It isn’t being taught…The banning part is being done WITHOUT the benefit of it being debated by students.
It’s the it that parents and by extension their elected representatives do not want taught to their children. The it curriculum is not some theory (different point of view) being debated in K-12 classrooms. It is being taught as the only acceptable view; not open for debate.
Kids aren’t being told to “sit down and shut up…”. That’s where misinformation is involved.
Actually, what you typed is a perfect example of misinformation. What I actually said was When you voice objections, you’re being told to sit down and shut up… The you being parents.
This it curriculum should never have been implemented into our K-12 schools until after it was debated outside of schools and approved by parents.
Olly,
“ The *it*curriculum is not some theory (different point of view) being debated in K-12 classrooms. It is being taught as the only acceptable view; not open for debate.”
It IS a theory a different point of view. It is being demonized by those who don’t want to debate it.
That it is being taught as the only acceptable view is pure BS. THAT is the misinformation that is being thrown around by tide who are intent on censoring it because it is an uncomfortable theory. There’s a LOT of misinformation about CRT and it is often propaganda by actual racists and bigots and it is aimed at parents who don’t have time to research the issue for themselves.
There is no problem teaching religion as a religion. The problem is mandatory prayer in school! It is not mandatory that students believe in the precepts of CRT! You suppose Turley teaches CRT in the doctrinaire manner which you suggest? The problem then is not the subject matter but the teacher!
So you are in favor of banning CRT in grade school is that it?
You are the one who says that it is censorious to refuse to broadcast Trump’s harmful disinformation. I say it is not. Turley would agree with me, not you, in the case of Trump’s disinfectant musings!
So you are in favor of banning CRT in grade school is that it?
I’m in favor of an open debate on all curriculum that is proposed to be taught at all levels of education, up through high school. Then once that is completed and school boards present those findings in a public forum for a Q & A with parents, then a vote is taken to approve the curriculum. Then, parents should have the option of enrolling their children at the school of their choice and their tax dollars go with them.
You are the one who says that it is censorious to refuse to broadcast Trump’s harmful disinformation. I say it is not. Turley would agree with me, not you, in the case of Trump’s disinfectant musings!
You have this nasty habit of insinuating I’ve said something, that I actually never said. Those are your words, not mine. Turley didn’t say that Trump or any other President should be censored. If he did, quote it. What’s actually sad is your incessant need for others to see you aligned with JT. Whether you are or not, speaks for itself.
Olly says:
“I’m in favor of an open debate on all curriculum that is proposed to be taught at all levels of education, up through high school. Then once that is completed and school boards present those findings in a public forum for a Q & A with parents, then a vote is taken to approve the curriculum. Then, parents should have the option of enrolling their children at the school of their choice and their tax dollars go with them.”
Ok. I got it. Then you are opposed to any law which would mandate that CRT should be precluded from a curriculum.
You say:
“You have this nasty habit of insinuating I’ve said something, that I actually never said. Those are your words, not mine. Turley didn’t say that Trump or any other President should be censored. If he did, quote it. What’s actually sad is your incessant need for others to see you aligned with JT. Whether you are or not, speaks for itself.”
I do that to get to the rub since time is fleeting. If I am mistaken, I welcome being corrected. Turley was unmistakable that he believed Trump’s disinfectant musing were harmful and dangerous. It was implicit that he would not want those remarks to be rebroadcast. He was calling for the White House to disavow them which it did not do to his satisfaction. I concede that Turley and I don’t agree on Little Brother censorship. But even Turley has a limit on obviously dangerous statements that can lead to real harm. It’s important that Turley is not misunderstood to hold the position that some Trumpists apparently believe that there is NOTHING that should be censored by Little Brother.
Then you are opposed to any law which would mandate that CRT should be precluded from a curriculum.
Nope. The state has a constitutional duty to secure the rights of all citizens equally. If they pass a law on education that does that, then I would support that.
Olly,
“ It’s not misinformation until it’s proven otherwise. You don’t prove it by censorship.”
The problem is it HAS been proven otherwise. When those who refuse to acknowledge the evidence and data and still insist on THEIR point of view by badmouthing legitimate data or being disingenuous with the data it is no longer a legitimate debate. It’s intentional forceful dissemination of false or inaccurate information, disinformation. When it’s intended goal is to undermine accurate data purely for ideological reasons it poses true harm. That’s how people seriously considered ingesting or injecting themselves with disinfectant after trump thought it would be a good idea.
“ CRT is also information.
That’s correct. And it’s countered by alternative information. ”
No it’s not. It’s being censored. Demanding it to be removed from curriculums where they don’t exist, to demanding books related to it be removed. That’s not offering alternative information. That’s preventing the information from being discussed because some students could feel guilty or uncomfortable.
It’s no different than the issue Turley brings up with joe Rogan’s podcasts.
“ When it comes to their children, the teaching of “CRT” is not much different than forcing Covid vaccines in the classroom. Parents have every right to object and even prevent what they believe will harm their children.”
CRT is not contagious or harmful. If it’s uncomfortable to consider as an idea it is no reason to ban it just as a discussion about different points of view about COVID. Parents can always provide their kids their own point of view themselves. According to Turley’s own reasoning CRT should be taught to students.
“CRT is not contagious or harmful.”
CRT peddles the wicked notions that one’s identity is determined by one’s race, that blacks are “oppressed” by whites, that America is inherently a racist country, that whites need to atone for their “sins.”
Propagandizing *children* with such noxious ideas raises a culture of tribalists. If that is *not* “harmful,” then there is no such thing.
Svelaz,
You beat me to the punch. All excellent points.
Turley wants to argue that all “bad speech” is merely a good faith difference of opinion when, in fact, much of it is deliberate lying.
If a network can be held liable and punished by paying millions of dollars for defaming someone in bad faith, you can’t blame the network for refusing to republish the defamation because it is merely a “difference of opinion!”
Some will call that censorship. I call it good sense.
Fauci has flip flopped more than a Chinese acrobat has.
Fauci, the World Health Organization and the CDC have provided information on COVID, vaccinations, preventing the spread and other information on COVID based on what studies said at the time and with a consensus of scientists. While Hannity and Tucker won’t explain this to you, no recommendations from the CDC are the product of Dr. Fauci, who is the spokesman for the CDC. The CDC has panels of experts that review information on emerging infectious diseases and make recommendations based on the state of knowledge at the time. They weren’t lying. They weren’t politically-motivated. They reported the information and recommendations based on best scientific knowledge and practices at the time. The COVID-19 strain was a NOVEL virus, so there was a learning curve to take into consideration. Recommendations on things like mask-wearing, social distancing, and handwashing were based on the fact that COVID is spread by respiratory droplets.
But, pro-Trump media continuously attack Dr. Fauci, accuse him of criminal behavior, imply that he’s going to prison, and imply that his statements are politically-motivated because he wouldn’t knuckle under to Trump and made him look like the inept fool he is. All of this is part of the anti-science agenda of the alt-right. Like Trump, Fox has to have a bogeyman to serve as the face of the enemy. And, you being a faithful Trump disciple, fall for it. You don’t know anything about Dr. Fauci and his groundbreaking work in helping to develop effective treatments for AIDS. Instead, you worship a former reality TV star who lives for attention, praise and adulation.
“POLITICO: Democrats With a Dirty Secret — They Watch Fox
“Tucker Carlson’s primetime show was the top-rated news show **among Democrats** between 25-54.”
Total day: 44% *of Dems* watch Fox; 33% watch CNN; 25% watch MSNBC.
58% of independents watch Fox.”
@glenngreenwald
You see Wen Bars, according to Natacha, it’s not misinformation, disinformation if your panel of “approved” experts are making their recommendations based on the knowledge they have at the time. It doesn’t matter if additional knowledge is acquired that proves those that were labeled as spreaders of disinformation were actually correct. The fact is they were not doing so under the auspices of the recognized scientific authority. So, although the “approved” scientific authority’s recommendations finally caught up with those “unapproved” rogue medical professionals, the latter group must be silenced lest the general population become distrustful of the former group.
Or just insert Trump and FoxNews, as hypnotic power words and magically nothing else matters.
So head back to the MSNBC/CNN coral and don’t bleat when others depart for much, much greener pastures. Your kind isn’t satisfied till everyone and everything is under the umbrella of your favorite cult. This time around it’s the Church Of Covid, next time it will be whatever you get off that feedline screwed to the back of your head/s. Your lack of self-awareness isn’t shocking or even surprising anymore, to anyone. It’s rather telling that you people keep using the lobotomized terminology dropped with every NPC update shoved into your sculls. ”Misinformation” is just the latest( and rather worn out already) catch-all excuse telling the world that you can’t dispute the facts and can’t argue on the merits so your game is heading for an obvious self-inflicted checkmate. Your Next Best Move is to flip the chessboard, slam your opponent across the face with it and when ”DA POLICE” arrives claim it was the structural -ism of the day that did it. Or Something. It’s always the whole package with you.
Anonymous, being emotionally triggered because you can’t make a cogent argument or have a legitimate discussion is your biggest obstacle. It’s what happens when misinformation is accepted without question.
I’m triple faxed, and double masked, as well as a retired physician in Internal Medicine, Pulmonary Dis, Critical care. I also socially distance and wash my hands every time I go out of my car (bottle of hand sanitizer in the console). I regard it as a defense in depth but with no guarantees. I have an immune problem that necessitates extra precautions. I also disagree with Mr Rogan on some issues but let the man speak and interview his guests. If one disagrees with his comments or arguments then present better ones. The messaging in both administrations has been definitely poor and could have been far better and more consistent and, yes, less confusing. I don’t remember the Trump administration asking the media to censor anyone. I still believe that real truth is achieved by the open and free marketplace of ideas. People cast medical decision making and recommendations as cast in iron but it is far more fluid and the discussions, even among physicians, often far more heated. The science literally changes from day to day, even before Covid 19, and your brain at any age struggles to keep up. Dr. Fauci may be right about a particular scientific aspect on 1 day but very wrong on many other days. He may have neglected to remember that.
The science literally changes from day to day, even before Covid 19, and your brain at any age struggles to keep up.
The speed is dizzying. I realize you are retired, unlike me, but perhaps you are following the developments on the new and evolving inflammatory paradigm wrt atherosclerosis. Add to this the break neck speed on new information re cardiac immune cells and their heterogeneity, and it makes me want to genuflect before God in my office and realize how full of it we are in medicine to think we know “so much”. See the number of articles published that have cited this important work: Meta-Analysis of Leukocyte Diversity in Atherosclerotic Mouse Aortas
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?linkname=pubmed_pubmed_citedin&from_uid=32673538
Exciting, fascinating, humbling and constantly changing.
The reality is that there has never been truly “free” speech in America and censorship has always played a role in media. Until the advent of social media, individuals had no means of making themselves heard. The First Amendment addressed the issue of government suppressing spoken and published speech but newspapers, publishers, TV producers, etc. have ALWAYS regulated what went out before the public. After all, the first publishers in America were political pamphleteers. Newspapers and, later, radio and TV broadcasters have always allowed access only to those they wanted to be heard. For every book that’s been written, hundreds were rejected by publishers whose main goal is profit. As for Joe Rogan, outside of sports, few people even knew who he was before this broo-ha. For that matter, few have heard of Spotify and even fewer use it. He may have 11 million subscribers but that’s still less than 3% of the population. As the late Betty White once said, Facebook and Twitter are a waste of time.
After all, the first publishers in America were political pamphleteers.
This needs to be fleshed out a bit.
The first amendment does not prevent congress from making a law to silence pamphleteers. congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or the press…Thats the machine, not the business.
Precisely because pamphleteers in Europe were shutting down presses. No presses, no distribution of speech.
But now the govt is not shutting down the presses. They are joining forces with private business to silence the distribution of speech.
That is one of the arguments against Twitter’s actions of censorship.
It goes against human nature to accept an infringement of rights. Don’t leave the cave! Don’t go beyond my eyesight! Don’t sail beyond the horizon! Don’t write that! Don’t read that! Don’t say that! Don’t do that!
Cultures have advanced because they naturally desired to know and do what they had been told couldn’t or shouldn’t be done. Large-scale infringement of rights will always precede a larger-scale revolt to restore them.
Those musicians that asked to have their music removed are free to protest in that manner. They are not free to censor others.
Spotify made the correct decision.
Go Joe! Neil who?? Now touch Sinatra, Dean or Sammy I might be offended.
Gee, such an opportunity to take guidance from Prince Harry who was “helped” to get out of Eton. No college or university for him. And joined the military where he seemed to be unable to learn how to to fly a helicopter so apparently he specialized in playing computer games. This is an “expert” Spotify hires for $8 million bucks and in over a year they have produced 35 minutes worth of product. Spotify needs to wake up fast or crumble it may.
Let’s see…Biden said if you get the vaccine, you won’t get COVID (check it out on YouTube.) So, as this is clearly misinformation, do the totalitarians want to censor Biden too? Fauci early in the pandemic said not to wear masks (also on YouTube.) Censor him also?
evhall: And not to mention 4 years of false Russiagate “reporting.” CNN and MSNBC should have been censored en masse. But by whom? They’re the problem.
To repeat: There is no scientific “consensus” on Covid policy which is WHY Joe Rogan had conversations with some of the doctors who disagree wtih the way it has been handled. Now they are going to slap warning labels on certain conversations?
Neil Young and pals keep defending their position saying “We are not for censorship, this is not about censorship!”
Nils Lofgren (who also removed his music) and his wife are so terrified of Covid they are “triple-vaxxed double maskers.” Yet they don’t believe *they* are listening to or following “misinformation”….no, they are following “science”….meaning they believe Dr. “I am Science” Fauci’s scientific recommendation that you should wear two or even three masks for even MORE protection from the virus!
And of course they “double-mask” to walk through restaurants, but feel safe to remove their “double masks” to sit and eat. But then “double mask” to walk out of the restaurant where you have been sitting, unmasked, for 2 hours. These people are TRIPLE VAXXED and STILL do this nonsense thinking they are PROTECTED because Fauci said so! Nothing illogical about it. Makes total sense, eh? But sure, THEY want to call for censorship of MISINFORMATION on Joe Rogan’s podcast?? It’s beyond absurd.
If you ever wondered what idiots would listen to Dr. Fauci’s non-scientific nonsense and actually follow it? Look no further.
When will the “warning advisories” be slapped on Dr. “I am Science” Fauci who has misled and lied to the country for two years now?
“The Fauci/Collins playbook to create a false impression of scientific consensus on COVID policy (used on lab-leak, lockdowns & early treatment):
1. Call scientists who disagree “fringe”
2. Deploy big tech misinformation hordes to suppress opposing thoughts
3. Deploy press propagandists & scientist allies to smear and takedown opponents
4. Reward allies with large grants”
@DrJBhattacharya
Neil Young and pals are all useful idiots.
Likewise, Canadian PM Justin Trudeau called the Freedom Convoy of Truckers a “small fringe minority” with “unacceptable views.”
Wrong!
Trudeau also defamed the truckers calling them racists, haters, homophobes, transphobes, misogynists, criminals…..in other words Justin is having a pathetic public meltdown!
Bye Justin!
How you like us truckers now, eh Justin? Our peaceful freedom movement is spreading round the world!
There are several points here that Rush Limbaugh shared during the course of his 3 hour show, aired 5 days a week
1)It is impossible for the ‘media’ to destroy, what they did not create. The media spent 30 years attempting to destroy Rush, and never laid a glove on him. Rogan fits in the same catagory. He earned 11 million followers (I’m new, just joined spotify this week ONLY for Rogan) without any media attention
2). The Streisand effect is real. Neal Young is either in a very small bubble and never heard of the Streisand effect, or too stupid to understand. Ditto for understanding the term leverage. Not that an artist has to understand any of that to create his art. But….if they get out of their lane, they will become road kill.
3) The twitter cancell mob is not 100’s of thousands of irate individuals. Rather they are lonely nerds, numbering into triple digits, living in their parents basement running 1000’s of NPC’s Rush laid all this out on his show a few times. Rush was able to go to his advertisers and show them the hard facts about what made up all those threatening to boycott. Not a paper tiger, but a digital kitten, eyes not yet open searching for a teat.
The internet of things is often not at all what it seems.
Ditto. I joined Spotify 2 minutes ago because of attempts to censor Rogan.
Joe Rogan’s worst crime is having conversations with deplorables. How do he and his producers select their guests? My uninformed guess is they find someone interesting, and someone who interests Joe Rogan. They don’t limit their guests by ratings, who will gain them entry into the cocktail circuit, or politics. They limit his show to interesting guests who might be interesting to his audience. If I were on the side of those seeking to censor him, my first and last question would be, “Why don’t we just refute what his guests say, and what he says?” The truth will eventually come out, and if they’re wrong, they’ll look foolish. I would be embarrassed if the people I follow tried to cancel anyone with whom they disagree.
It appears that Young never did have a heart of gold – possibly silver and more likely bronze
Well, we all have seen the needle and the damage done, so there is that
😀
Neil now says: Freedom ain’t free anymore! Ya gotta ‘take the jab’ to keep Rockin’ in the Free world…
The most recent comments as of this moment on Neil Young’s youtube video of “Old Man” are priceless.
JackedJaw
4 minutes ago
Used to love this song… but I prefer Joe Rogan now
Kryp tonian
52 minutes ago
this kid would hate what he has become. such great talent and great music and good messages wasted. the man who used to rally against the man and support free speech has become “the man” and went ti war with one of the few true forms of free speech we have left. my father used to always tell me. ” pay attention to everything. there’s always more to the story”
Ryan Lengacher
1 hour ago
Joe Rogan is on YouTube you going to remove your music off here too
ddowns24
3 hours ago
Idiot savant
Na Na
5 hours ago
Decent song. Too bad he’s a f***** idiot.
Bradley Wellington the 40th
5 hours ago
Joe Rogan sings better 🤡
RecoilFreak
7 hours ago
Following the example set by Neil Young – I’m deleting this video from my youtube music playlist because I disagree with what he says. #JoeRogan
It is only the United States of America with an enforced Bill of a Rights, especially the First Amendment. Understanding that these are inalienable rights means that it’s up to us, the citizens, to protect these rights when private companies lead the mob restricting these rights. At the end of the day, in the 21st century, it’s up to us.
Rogan’s anti-vaccine and pro-Covid…
You are confused about who is saying what.
Dr Robert Mallone, leader in groundbreaking research developing mRNA vaccines, was interviewed by Rogan.
John Hopkins studied the results of govt lockdowns and found they did much harm and never saved any lives.
The Great Barringtion Declaration, Written by University Epidemioligists and supported by Nobel prize winning virologists “Once we recalibrate our viewpoint and accept the scientific fact that COVID is indeed an age-stratified disease, we can use our resources far more wisely”
Rogan just gave EXPERTS a platform to discuss current events.
Amazing arrogance – we know what you can hear/see/read and we will censor everything else.
People are resourceful and find alternatives meaning that censorship has diminishing effects.
And normal people are getting angrier.
Can anyone show me the last time the people shouting for censorship were the good guys?
Rogan’s anti-vaccine and pro-Covid lies are killing off the Trump voters dumb enough to listen to him. So ya, I am all for keeping Rohan going.
TDS continues….and correct spelling remains optional for those who suffer from it, I see.
Sammy, check out vaccine rates among Blacks in our cities. Black vax rates are probably lower than Trump voter vax rates since many Trump voters are older they will tend to be vaxed at a higher rate.
Are you really that brainwashed?
“Rogan’s anti-vaccine and pro-Covid lies are killing off the Trump voters dumb enough to listen to him. So ya, I am all for keeping Rohan going.”
Wow, it’s hard to find one as ignorant as this one. He is looking for the death of those that disagree with him. When one wants to look for the most malevolent, one can look at this one and, from what we are told, his other aliases as well.
Not looking for them to die, I just won’t stop them from killing themselves.
Said with such glee. We all have to remember what a caring type of guy you are.
These are people who have refused to comply with every covid prevention measure from day one. They are not caring people themselves and I truly do not care if they die or not. Why should I care for them when they are so hell bent on not caring for others?
Sammy, you are a liar. Many believe the vaccine to be harmful and are not at high risk from the virus because of health and age. Since vaccinated and unvaccinated can transmit the virus, it doesn’t stop the spread. There is no reason to force those people to take the vaccine or be happy like you are should they die.
Many already had Covid and are likely better prepared for a future bout. Many have contraindications to the vaccine. But you will cheer with glee when they die like you cheered Cuomo when he killed so many nursing home patients.
Many practice social distancing and wear masks in close contact, but you will cheer their deaths because they didn’t follow the dictums of your master in lockstep.
You are a sick individual.
What is sick is people like you spreading blatantly false information about covid. Who else would do that other then a psychopath? Those who believe the vaccine is harmful do not live in reality. Having prior covid does not give better protection. And they did not social distance, nor did they willingly wear masks.I do not cheer their deaths, I just do not care if they do, the same way they do not care if others get covid and die. What I do cheer is their eternity in hell.
“What is sick is people like you spreading blatantly false information about covid.”
What false information have I provided? You are lying as usual.
“Those who believe the vaccine is harmful do not live in reality. ”
As I have said before, I don’t have that answer, but I am vaccinated. However, for those that are not braindead, there is information that shows the other side of the vaccine. History will tell us what was right and wrong, but the lockdowns wouldn’t work as the experts and WHO initially said. So far, we see the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission.
“Having prior covid does not give better protection. ”
That hasn’t been proven one way or the other, but the likelihood favors better immunization from the whole live virus than a protein spike.
“And they did not social distance, nor did they willingly wear masks.”
People based their actions on their risks. The young knew they were unlikely to die. The old and sick knew their likelihood of death was greater. The vast majority of people considered those things. The leftist-run governments ensured nursing homes would be infected with Covid by returning patients with Covid to the nursing home prematurely. That was done even though beds were made available for those people.
Leftie governments packed multiple generations indoors while closing outdoor areas, which increases the risk. Leftie governments didn’t ensure clean transportation, causing underground transportation workers to be more vulnerable.
Keep cheering their deaths. We already know what you are.
“Those who believe the vaccine is harmful do not live in reality.”
And you do?
btw, people do not just “believe” it, they are “living” it.
For you, Sammy….
Pfauci Pharma: Trust the science.
Public: Ok, let me see it. Show me the data.
Pfarma: It will be released in 75 years.
Get that dumb picture off the blog. Get 5he topic off too.
If you value free speech sign up to Joe Rogan’s podcast on Spotify. If you want what you read and see censored by people like the two commenters who seem representative of the new wave of fascism join the Nazi party.
I check in with Rogan on you tube. Don’t always absolutely agree with him, but I find myself agreeing with him more than I disagree with him.