Once again we have someone here conflating the first amendement with free speech. Free speech is a principle, the first amendment works in service of it.
The GP’s comment is that “This is the latest attack in an ongoing war on free speech. We are losing our freedoms.”
What freedoms can possible be referred to other than the First Amendment? This is the standard language of someone applying the First Amendment to private citizens and companies.
This specific conflict is involving Americans and the American arm of Spotify. Those unenumerated freedoms are supported by the laws of the country.
If you want to devolve into purely hypotheticals you’re going to find yourself on weak legs because the ultimate argument ends up being that “Joe Rogan speech is denying my freedom from hearing arguments I do not agree with.” These specific issues have been long settled by the rule of law. Being contrarian about this is neither productive or practical.
Where does my freedom end and yours begin? If I am infringing on what you feel is your freedom, where is that line? Do I get to play my loud music at 2AM when you have an early morning? Is it ok if you are sleeping in the next day so it doesn’t really matter that I’m keeping you up? When do these ultimate and unlimited unenumerated freedoms fall apart?
When they infringe on what society considers to be the normative freedoms we all get to enjoy.
Spotify gets to run their private business as they see fit because that is their freedom to do as long as they do not break a law or infringe upon your freedoms. Your perceived freedoms cannot infringe upon their freedoms.
I made no claim that Spotify is without right to do as it pleases per contractual obligation. I do make the claim that freedoms can be eroded legally, such as freedom to enjoy an alternative opinion.
