I think if you review the biographies of those three individuals, you will find that the stories of their persecutions are a lot more complex than that they were attacked for their novel ideas (though that is certainly an aspect). In most cases it wasn't their scientific ideas that were shocking or banned, but their political affiliations or religious stances. I think all three would have a platform today, because they provided evidence based and extensively reasoned positions. I see Rogan in rather the opposite way: he is contributing noise to the larger discussion by intentionally amplifying particular voices, without regard for whether or not they are in good faith, because they resonate with him or his perception of his audience. If Rogan were finding and amplifying voices that had evidence based arguments that contributed to overall understanding, I would be much more positively inclined.

Though all that said, I'm against deplatforming him.