Can Joe Rogan Save Free Speech?

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 journalistsacademics 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 politiciansacademics, 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.

129 thoughts on “Can Joe Rogan Save Free Speech?”

  1. Joni Mitchell had a Pimp Black alter ego named Art Nuveau. She felt a spiritual kinship with not only black people, but with the subcategory of jive walking, loud dressing, pimp style of the 60’s and 70’s. She just felt that style of black men were “her people.”

    She even dressed in black drag for one of her album covers. Most people never knew that was her.

    If gender is a state of mind, why can’t race be?

    If Megan Kelly was fired for asking if it was possible to wear dark makeup in homage, rather than blackface, then why wasn’t Joy Behar and Joni Mitchell cancelled?

    How many different standards should there be?

  2. I have seen no evidence that Whoopi Goldberg intended to be antisemitic. She appeared misinformed. Her gaffe was an excellent opportunity to explain to her that race is a social construct, and the nature of the Holocaust. Here in America, racial categories in the US census are White, Black or African American, Asian American, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Notice what is missing. Hispanic is no longer a race category. “Mexican” also used to be a race category. The League of United Latin American Citizens declared Hispanics should be counted as whites, and had all such designations removed. Latino is now considered an ethnicity, not a race, as someone could be Afro-Latino, have Native American ancestry, or be quite pale from Spanish or European ancestry. So you could be Mexican American, descended from the Aztecs, and be considered white on a census just like someone with Swedish ancestry. A lot is also left up to self identification.

    However, other countries and societies have defined race differently. North Korea most emphatically does not treat all Asian ancestry the same. When a North Korean woman escapes, and becomes impregnated by a Chinese man, if she’s recaptured, she is forced to have an abortion of the “mixed race” baby. Nazi Germany infamously revered the Aryan Race, comprised of pale skinned, blue-eyed blonds. They believed this “race” was superior to all others, but especially compared with Romany Gypsies or Jews. Jews were not only categorized by religion, but considered a race, with infamously mocked phenotypes. Even if a Jewish person’s ancestors left the Middle East 2,000 years ago, brought to Europe by the Roman slave trade, the Nazis still did not consider them European. They might be surprised to learn that about 80% of the maternal mitochondrial DNA of Ashkenazi Jews are genetically descended from Europeans, likely who converted during pagan times.

    Whoopie Goldberg should have had the opportunity to learn more about this topic.

    I have seen no evidence that Roseanne Barr is racist. She claims she had no idea that Valerie Jarett identified as black. Jarett was born in Iran, and later lived in London. She grew up speaking Farsi, French, and later English. Her parents were of mixed race. It is not clear by looking at her that she has black ancestry. As a great many people with black ancestry are of mixed race, it appears to be a personal choice how one identifies. Since many seem to adhere to the One Drop Rule in deciding their race, it raises the question of how much of a hindrance black ancestry really has in America. What it means to be black no longer is about how pale or dark someone is. Someone can be black or mixed race, yet have quite pale skin, or the reverse.

    Roseanne Barr Tweeted a rude comment about Jarett, and was shocked to learn she had black ancestry, which made a comment regularly made about white people become unacceptable. Bush and Trump were regularly compare with monkeys and apes. Since they are white, there was no problem. While rude, the choice of words was likely an honest mistake. I often told my own child he was going bananas, acting like a monkey, or being as wile as a barrel of monkeys. I would laughingly say this to him and his friends when they were playing. Yet, such an innocent comment could be misconstrued if said about a black kid.

    So many people make mistakes, and should be given the chance at redemption.

    As a business owner, I absolutely get that employee behavior can damage an employer’s profits and reputation. That needs to be dealt with. But a policy needs to be fair and equal to all, not selectively applied.

  3. As a business owner, this is how I view the free speech issue:

    An employee often needs to keep his personal views separate from his employer. This is because expressing political speech in the workplace reflects upon his employer, and drags him into controversy with customers. If an employee harangues customers in line about their voting preferences, it will drive business away. If an employee says that he thinks stealing should be legalized, and he works at Company X, people aren’t going to hire his employer to do work in their homes. Business owners have the right to decide if their company will be welcoming to all, or if they’re going for a specific political niche. A business can have a policy for professionalism in the workplace.

    HOWEVER, a business that operates as a host for speech should either allow all legal activity, or it should have to disclose how they wish to discriminate. For instance, there could be a Democrat message board online which is only open to pro-Democrat content.

    I think that in order to qualify for 230 protection, a company needs to be unbiased. Viewpoint discrimination should be grounds to lose that protection. Congress should revisit this issue.

  4. Notice where the totalitarian censorship movement is coming from?

    The Left.

    Vote responsibly.

  5. If I were designing an ad campaign and wanted to get maximum exposure, I could only hope for such a wonderful opportunity! Without spending a dime, all parties involved get tons of free advertising.

    Until this little tiff, I had no idea who he was. I had never used Spotify (or given them much thought) and it has been decades since I thought about Neil Young. In the world of advertising it was a big win all around. All they need now is a campaign to keep the momentum going and manage perception.

    How do you think Governor Palin went from unknown soccer mom/Governor making a modest salary to instant multimillionaire?

  6. Though Spotify, Facebook, etc., are private companies to whom the First Amendment does not apply, I questioned the actions of elected politicians who pressure these private companies to engage in censorship or else suffer legislative repercussions, such as antitrust actions. At some point, politicians pressuring private companies to engage in censorship may cross the line into being actual violations of the First Amendment.

    1. “[P]oliticians pressuring private companies to engage in censorship *may* cross the line into being actual violations of the First Amendment.” [Emphasis added.]

      “May”?! *That* is censorship. Behind every such “pressuring” is the government’s police powers, i.e., physical force. It’s textbook fascism. And the worst offender is that cretin, Psaki.

      1. ” *That* is censorship. Behind every such “pressuring” is the government’s police powers, i.e., physical force. It’s textbook fascism.”

        Sam, that is correct and that is what I have been trying to point out since our discussions on section 230 of the CDA.

  7. If I were Rogan, I’d work on looking for truly independent Conservative media that does not sensor, is not connected to AWS, Google Ads, any liberal media or data sources that can shut him down, move there, tell Spotify to get bent, tell the basement dwelling liberals to go f themselves and you’ll not only see us Rogan fans follow him, the hate filled miserable liberals will follow too (cause they all need to see what we’re talking about evidenced by their constant following the very people they claim to want to shut down and it’s not like there isn’t a million other things they could watch or listen to) the consequences will be the Biden Commie boot licker’s like Spotify, Twitter, YouTube, etc will loose all revenue and disappear like dust in the wind. Suckers. Hit them where it counts, the wallet!

  8. Back in the 1950’s and early 60’s, when television was growing in popularity, content providers had to work hard, day and night at times, to figure out what the viewing public would watch. I recall hearing the expression “if you don’t like what’s on, just change the channel” as the simplest answer to programming one found uninteresting, or objectionable, or distasteful, or, or, or. etc. etc.

    This whole Joe Rogan/Spotify/Neil Young situation brought that expression back to mind: just don’t listen to the man’s podcast; no one is forcing it upon you.

    And I find it disastrous that the Joe Biden Administration is now getting involved in the Rogan situation —

    So, to you Neil Young, and Neil Young fans, you have the freedom of choice, at least while it still is in existence in this country —- don’t listen to Rogan…
    Change the channel!

    1. I will cop to being a fan of Neil Young’s music.

      But I am not a fan of Neil Young, or any other celebrity, whether it’s music, film, sports or politics, or whatever field.

      Separate the substance from the personality.

      The substance is what matters.

      Personality will disappoint, sooner or later.

  9. Jonathan Turley is trying to do too much and oft fails to think matters through…

    1. Neil Young thought this matter through too. Before taking his sanctimonious stance, he sold 50% of his publishing rights to Hipgnosis Songs Fund for 150 Million USD. So he gives nothing by pulling of Spotify. More cost free virtue posturing!

  10. Jonathan: Neil Young and Joni Mitchell are two of my folk music heroes. So I was naturally deeply hurt over your criticism of them when they pulled their music from Spotify–over Joe Rogan’s podcast that spreads lies and misinformation about Covid. It was a principled position for Young, Mitchell and other well known artists since they derive substantial royalties from being on the music service. Young’s action followed the protest of over 250 medical experts who also protested Rogan’s podcasts. Since then over 1,000 other medical professionals have joined the protest. Spotify says it doesn’t want to be a “content censor” but has established advisory protocols to warn against Covid misinformation. What Young did was simply to exercise his “free speech” right to object to Rogan’s spurious claims about Covid. A number of other artists have pulled their music and subscribers have also decided to exercise their “free speech” rights by cancelling their subscriptions. Spotify hasn’t cancelled Rogan’s podcast. So what exactly is the big deal? But you want to conflate this minor dispute into some sort of grand conspiracy–part of your continued drumbeat about “corporate censorship”. Neither Young nor Spotify has “censored” Rogan.

    But in your support of Rogan’s disinformation about Covid you say Rogan is one of those.” ‘super-survivors’, people who seem to have natural immunities protecting them from an otherwise lethal threat”. The operative word is “seem”. Medical experts say a person who had Covid and has a certain level of protection (there is no medical consensus on the level of immunity) they still need to get vaccinated because they can still pass on the deadly virus to others. It seems you are also spreading disinformation about Covid. You are in good company with Rogan!

    On a final point you say: “Many of us view free speech as a human right” Really? Defamation is not a “human right” I suspect you will welcome the upcoming decision by the Supremes to severely limit or abolish the right of women to choose abortion. Isn’t the right of a woman to make that very personal decision also a “human right”? I guess for you the answer is “No”. That decision should be left to mostly anti-female male right-wing politicians who want to “cancel” and “censor” women and even punish them (and their doctors). Consistency has never been your forte.

    1. Point to the specific “disinformation about Covid” being spread on Rogan’s show.

      1. It doesn’t matter if it’s 100 percent disinformation. Whether someone speaks 100 percent truth or 100 percent lies cannot be the criteria for who can speak and who should be silenced.

        It may be a cliche, but the only antidote to bad information is more information.

    2. Dennis, let’s assume there are two sides in this battle. One side says that Joe Rogan has the right to say what he thinks. Your side says that the federal government must tell him to shut his mouth and that he should be forcibly removed from the airwaves. You have a long winded comment that could have been easily shortened to shut Joe Rogan up and soon no one will remember who he is. Some may not agree on the abortion issue but no one is trying to shut down the right to speak by the pro abortion advocates. One side calls for free speech and those on the other side want to forcibly shut people down. We know who Joe Rogan is and we know who you are. Consequently we must asses which one of you is more dangerous. I am not calling for your censorship but I am saying that it is important for people to recognize your position on one of if not the most important freedom that the American people possess. We are not enamored with your recommendations.

    3. Except you’re wrong as it’s not misinformation. Give it 3-6 months to play out. Everything Dr Robert Malone said is true. Young and Mitchell have no medical training. They are following the politicians, not Science.

    4. Geez…”deeply hurt”… See that’s the problem when ppl are deeply hurt about such trivial things like what turley said about you favorite singers. Where as ppl deeply hurt are those getting jabbed even though it is unnecessary if the have natural immunity. The medical experts have not studied this potential for harm. Sure maybe the stats show jab on top of nat immnty is super Iimmune for a bit … but as long as they deny any harms from the vac at all …well my intelligence is insulted. And real ppl are being really deeply hurt by these jabs. For no legit public health reason for kids and young men.

      1. Amen.

        There is no public health benefit to these “vaccines” being given en masse to the entire US population.

        But there is a legit reason for the pharma companies to push for it:

        Why is Pfizer pushing for another “emegency use authorization” in order to give these series of experimental vaccines NEEDLESSLY to babies, toddlers and children under 5…when there is NO emergency basis for doing so?

        Answer from Dr. Christina Parks: “Why are they vaccinating our children? Because once it’s on the childhood schedule, they are no longer liable for injury.
        The Vaccine Injury Act (1986) insulates the pharmaceutical industry from all liability once added to the childhood vaccination schedule.”


        Who is deeply hurt? Our children.

    5. Dennis, listen to Ted Nugent talk some sense, specifically about Neil Young’s burnt-out brain.

    6. Rogan DISCUSSES subjects, bringing out both sides. It’s called point/counterpoint. There is no absolute right or wrong. Just because the government agencies such as the CDC and agents such as Fauci say something is true and correct does not mean that it is. Anyone who doesn’t understand this is a fool.

    7. “[T]hey still need to get vaccinated because they can still pass on the deadly virus to others.”

      Speaking of “disinformation.”

      News flash: The fully vaccinated can both contract and spread Covid.

  11. I support Young’s right to remove his music from Spotify. It is his music after all so it is his right to say “I will not let my music be part of a online portal that includes Joe Rogan and his podcast.” And so do the other artists joining Young. Again, it is his their right to do so. I also support Joe Rogan’s right to free speech on his podcast. It is his podcast and creation after all. The complication comes from Spotify being a private company and they can decide who can use it to publish information and also the how, the why, and the content of that information it they so choose. I feel that all the ones screaming and demanding censorship and wonder why they don’t just get their information from other sources? I find no value in all of the mainstream media so I search for alternatives. I do not demand it be removed for everyone else. Spotify is difficult spot. Take the money from the ad revenues of the JRE podcast or satisfy the lynch mob. In the long run I think Joe has options if Spotify clamps down to the point he no longer wants to stay and he is popular enough his fans will follow. I do not envy Spotify’s position in this debate. Whatever the outcome I think free speech should and will prevail in the end. I feel sorry for those who need to burn down thoughts and words they disagree with. I admire those who stand on principal and say my intellectual property will not shared with a company that allows things like Joe Rogan’s podcast. No matter what Free Speech should prevail and there should be a place for it be practiced and debated. Peace.

  12. Little Neil Young
    Southern man don’t need him around anyhow.
    Good Riddance

    1. Yep. L.S. had him pegged decades ago. Young sold out and so did Mitchell. They sang about freedom but the jingle jangling in their purses persuaded them that $$$$ is better than what our esteemed VP would call fweeeeedom.

  13. Like many of us, I have listened to Neil Young’s music, via the radio since the early 1970’s. I have not always agreed with his lyrics. However, it has never even occurred to me to suggest “ban Neil Young’s music”, I simply just changed the channel when an offending if oft beautifully sound piece was played. Neil Young and his peers who have joined in his actions, oft sang of oppression and injustice. Today they have morphed into that which they once decried. Big Brother Syndrome is cunning, baffling and powerful- one is swept into its darkness oft with no conception of the evil being self released . It’s besotted presence lurks even in the minds of those who once called for us to be more open minded but today shackle their perceived offenders to dungeon walls with mouth’s duct taped shut. Well said Prof Turley.

  14. Turley notes:

    “While Rogan has promised to be more careful in how information is presented on his show”


    Rogan is being warned to self-censor? Where does Spotify get off threatening Rogan to be *more careful*? WHO the hell decides whether Rogan has been “careful” enough? This *promise* to behave IS exactly the kind of insidious Little Brother censorship that Turley is complaining about! There is NO bright line between “careful speech” and “reckless speech.” It’s all or nothing! Can’t you see that?

    Rogan MUST refuse to accept that he has to be “more careful” whatever that means. Screw that! He must tell Spotify that he will say what he pleases, and if they don’t like it, he will take his 11 million viewers to another platform.

    Turley adds:

    “and Spotify will add “advisories” on podcasts….”


    It’s not bad enough that Spotify has told Rogan to watch his step, NOW it will warn his VIEWERS to take what he says with a grain of salt? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? What will the advisory state? Something along the lines of this “advisory”:

    “The information and opinions expressed on this podcast are not intended to be complete and accurate. Joe Rogan’s opinions are based upon information he considers reliable, but he does not guarantee its accuracy, and it should not be relied upon as such. Joe Rogan and Spotify are not under any obligation to update or correct any information provided on his podcast.”

    In other words, Rogan’s podcast is strictly for entertainment purposes.

    I refuse to believe that Rogan will accept such an indignity. He should tell Spotify to shove it and find a platform with NO CONDITIONS on his speech and NO DISCLAIMERS on his program!

      1. No one cares? You speak for EVERYONE? Don’t flatter yourself. You are but one man’s opinion.

        Don’t you agree with my commentary? It should be music to your ears…

          1. I know. I know. Go away Jeff! Go away! Leave!

            I’m welcomed here by Turley, and I am not leaving unless Darren tells me that Turley is rescinding his open invitation to all civil contributors and desires that I leave the premises. Until then, I’m here; get used to it.

            Are we clear?

            1. You were not asked to go away. People don’t care enough about you or what you say. You are like the clown at the fair that gets dunked when someone hits the bullseye. People on this blog like to play, poke the fool. Don’t leave and deprive them of the opportunity to do so.

              However, for a person to be so repetitive and nasty to the host who permits you to post for free is something most people look at as deranged and mean. Don’t go. You are the perfect fool to be poked and deserve it as well.

                1. Jeffy, conservatives support your right to speak, and Turley, a Liberal, does too. I am glad you are supportive of a bit of fun. We all enjoy dunking the fool, so we don’t know what we would do without you. Thanks for being the fool.

      2. I read, with care, what jeffsilberman writes. I guess that implies that I care what he writes.

        One of the few sensible writers here…

    1. Jeff, I’ll be dilly dogged damned. You and I agree on something? Just keep in mind that the calls for censorship are all coming from your compatriots on the left. Are you on the road to Damascus?

      1. TiT,

        I was parodying you Trumpists and highlighting the hypocrisy of Turley.

        I’ve never listened to Rogan, nor do I intend to. Maybe if Turley went on his program, but I doubt Turley would lower himself.

        So, relax, I have not changed. I’m the same Liberal you Trumpists can still kick around.

        1. “So, relax, I have not changed. I’m the same Liberal you Trumpists can still kick around.”

          Thank you, thank you so much. We can still play poke the fool. Thank you.

  15. Hopefully Neil Young will do the country and world a favor by withdrawing his music everywhere. That would certainly show Joe Rogan that Young is committed to covid.

    Every time I have heard Young’s whiny vocals for the last 40-50 years they have set my teeth on edge like nails on a blackboard.

  16. “The Party of FDR and JFK have become the Party of LOL and WTF”
    – Bill Maher

    1. I’m waiting for the day Bill Maher realizes he’s a Libertarian, not a Democrat.

  17. I’d like to see Spotify proactively encourage activist content providers to find other accommodations. Push out the troublemakers.

    Oh, they all happen to be woke? What a surprise.

  18. “Many of us view free speech as a human right.”

    So why do you have Darren delete perfectly civil comments that are posted to your blog?

    This question is everpresent when you complain about some other private entity restricting speech.

    “Young was soon joined by Joni Mitchell and others in the “if-you-listen-to-him-you-can’t listen-to-me” demand.””

    What bunk. Anyone who wants to can listen to Neil Young and Joni Mitchell elsewhere. The only issue is whether Spotify gets to profit from it. Do you also consider freedom of association to be a human right? Young and Mitchell do not want to be associated with Rogan.

    1. “Young and Mitchell do not want to be associated with Rogan.”

      By staying in America, they are associating with Rogan. Maybe they should leave for China to associate more with people of their own type.

    2. Anonymous

      I assume that you are EB, but who knows (or cares about you other than recognizing an ass when he posts).

      “…perfectly civil…” is another one of your disingenuous (lying?) Comments.

      You are often rude, insulting, and almost always wrong.

      It is the first two traits that get your comments pulled.

      1. No, I’m not Bug, and I wasn’t talking only (or even primarily) about my own comments. Darren removes lots of comments that are civil.

        You’re correct that Darren removes Bug’s comments. Here’s an example (the top comment on the page), no more rude than many that remain:
        So why was it removed when Turley time and again declares that speech shouldn’t be censored?

        1. ATS, you recognize when your post is most likely to be banned. I proved that a while ago when I predicted which of your postings would be deleted. See the following link for just a few predictions with the results.

          I said: “I expect the following comments to be deleted.” That response was immediately followed by three others providing more information about your type of troll activity.

          The mechanism is uncertain, but many were deleted in that time frame. After that discussion, the number of deletions fell drastically. Such a drastic change has meaning.

          Many who use emails can see when a post is deleted. When you complain of a deleted post, and no email of that nature exists on one’s email account, one recognizes you as a liar who wishes to lie and complain about Turley or his blog.

          Say hello to your other troll creations, Sammy, Edison and Molly G, and Green Anonymous used with Karen and a couple of others. Trolls will be trolls. You are the biggest one on this blog.

Comments are closed.