I'd say that we have much bigger issues to worry about than censoring Joe Rogan if you truly believe the world is so far gone that majority of the population is not capable of listening to multiple opposing viewpoints, weighing them accordingly, and coming to their own conclusions.
> but free speech idealism is dangerous and is actively harming the world - [...] antivaxx crap resulting in resurgence of once eradicated diseases
Similarly, free speech denialism is resulting in resurgence of censorship and propaganda.
We're actively handing the only real power we have in a democratic society back into the hands of the establishment, and for what?
If you have any moral principles, it seems naive to think that your opinions will always align with the popular narrative.
By delegitimizing the fundamental right to free speech, you are ensuring that you will be silenced, cancelled, or deplatformed yourself if you ever attempt to speak out about something you don't agree with.
> Similarly, free speech denialism is resulting in resurgence of censorship and propaganda
What is free speech denialism? Nobody denies free speech is a very important right to be cherished and preserved. Propaganda hae nothing to do with free speech, and hasn't really moved either way (there's as much as there was before).
It's not about the popular narrative, it's about boundaries. Overt racism, antivax anti-science shouldn't be excused with free speech, which doesn't in any way impact wether or not and who can criticise what.
Belief that opposing viewpoints don't deserve to be protected under free speech (excluding the obvious, like inciting violence).
> Propaganda hae nothing to do with free speech, and hasn't really moved either way (there's as much as there was before).
I don't have any numbers to back it up, but even if it's not more common, it's certainly more impactful with all of the "wrongthink" being silenced.
> Overt racism, antivax anti-science shouldn't be excused with free speech
Your second claim is more interesting, because I keep seeing people repeat the claims that Joe Rogan is "antivax & anti-science". Keep in mind, I don't follow his podcast, but I watched the full episode with Robert Malone after the social media outcry started.
The conclusion that I came to is that he's not "anti-science" - that would imply that he doesn't believe in the scientific method. What people really mean when they say that he's anti-science is that he came to different conclusions than they did after considering the evidence (or lack thereof), therefore he's wrong, and since his critics view themselves as "pro-science", Joe must be anti-science.
But whether or not he's wrong, it doesn't have anything to do with freedom of speech. If you do believe that he's wrong, call him out publicly, write a blog post detailing why he's wrong, record your own podcast and debunk any claims he or his guests made, with evidence. Be the opposing voice and present rational counter-arguments.
Bad research gets published all the time and "science" is not some singular entity that only consists of homogeneous ideas, and that's not even taking into account all of the conflicts of interest that exist for the pharma industry in publishing research that stands to make them $billions.
This is why it's important to allow an open and free discussion of opposing viewpoints, it's the only way of advancing human knowledge and widespread acceptance of your ideas in an open and free society. Censoring someone because you disagree with them is not going to change their (or their viewers') mind.
> which doesn't in any way impact wether or not and who can criticise what
If I risk getting censored, "cancelled", having my livelihood taken away for voicing my opposing views (which aren't violent nor bigoted, just a simple disagreement on the topic of scientific research), I would argue that very much impacts who can criticize what.
> Overt racism, antivax anti-science shouldn't be excused with free speech, which doesn't in any way impact wether or not and who can criticise what.
All those things are covered under "free speech". There's no legal definition for "hate speech", or "anti-vax speech" or "anti-science speech". They are all ALLOWED.
> All those things are covered under "free speech". There's no legal definition for "hate speech", or "anti-vax speech" or "anti-science speech". They are all ALLOWED.
In the USA, and not everybody lives there. Heck, Spotify, the company in question, is Swedish.
Hate speech has plenty of definitions in plenty of different countries, with varying levels ( e.g. in France blatant overt racism is illegal, in Thailand it's "stoking negative feelings in people" or some other bullshit ).
> Hate speech has plenty of definitions in plenty of different countries, with varying levels ( e.g. in France blatant overt racism is illegal, in Thailand it's "stoking negative feelings in people" or some other bullshit ).
I'll take the US model since it's clearly superior.
> but free speech idealism is dangerous and is actively harming the world - [...] antivaxx crap resulting in resurgence of once eradicated diseases
Similarly, free speech denialism is resulting in resurgence of censorship and propaganda.
We're actively handing the only real power we have in a democratic society back into the hands of the establishment, and for what?
If you have any moral principles, it seems naive to think that your opinions will always align with the popular narrative. By delegitimizing the fundamental right to free speech, you are ensuring that you will be silenced, cancelled, or deplatformed yourself if you ever attempt to speak out about something you don't agree with.