Rogan promoted the conspiracy theory that Epps was an “agent provocateur” for the feds, a baseless claim that has led to a defamation suit against Fox News.
Rogan promoted the conspiracy theory that Epps was an “agent provocateur” for the feds, a baseless claim that has led to a defamation suit against Fox News.
Rogan should be deplatformed. We don’t have a robust enough education system for ‘free speech’ to work when people like Rogan are just lying to people.
I can’t believe people really support restricting free speech, it blows my mind. Is it a generational thing? He’s plainly a bit dense, but even if you don’t consider it freedom of the press, it’s just one guy talking rubbish. And he’s far from the worst!
To confirm, no, I don’t listen to his podcast, mostly because he’s quite boring and I disagree with him on most things.
Deplatforming isn’t restricting free speech.
I sort of feel it is, in the sense of banning somebody from a public space, despite the arguments about social media platforms being privately owned. That just makes me think those platforms should be publicly owned. To me it’s like saying somebody owns this park, so you don’t have freedom of speech in it. That logic doesn’t sit well with me.
deleted by creator
How is deplatforming restricting free speech? He can still go on the street corner and spout his nonsense.
Rogan is an utter piece of filth and trash. You should more explicitly say that rather than your milquetoast description of him.
The Milky Bars are on me, femme lit.
Free speech means that the government can’t silence citizens outside of specific protections. It doesn’t mean that private companies are required to give you a microphone. I highly doubt Spotify will take Rogan off the air anytime soon considering how much money he makes them, but if they did it wouldn’t be restricting his free speech in any way as there are a magnitude of other places he can talk, from other online platforms to a soapbox on the corner of 5th Ave.
Said this elsewhere but the private company bullshit is a weak argument. If a private individual owned 5th Ave., would it mean there was no freedom of speech there? Are we “pro” private property suddenly? I really don’t understand the inconsistency here.
What’s your address? Id like to stop by and spew hateful racist bs from your front lawn. I’m sure all your neighbors won’t think you are also a hateful racist just because I’m doing that on your property. Please make sure the megaphone is setup for me.
As if I own property! But if you want to pop round, I’ll put the kettle on.
Im going to go out on a limb and guess you’re not a minority.
Because when people use their “free speech” to harass you and make your like worse, then worshiping the bastardised idea of “free speech” suddenly isnt very appealing.
Well that would be harassment, which I wouldn’t support. In fact, yeah, that should be illegal. But the right of people to say stupid stuff, you know… I may not agree with what you have to say, etc.
Okay, but then the question becomes: If harassment should be illegal then should a call for other people to harass someone be illegal?
Then if you say yes to that the question then becomes: should a thinly veiled call to harass someone be illegal?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F
Then if you agree with that, you have to draw a line about how obvious a dog whistle needs to be.
I’m familiar with Thomas Becket, thank you though.