Neil Young vs. Joe Rogan

[Matt2496]

Do you have specific examples?

Good luck getting an answer. The silence when you ask that question demonstrates that these people probably have never even listened to Joe Rogan's podcasts and are just blindly running with the narrative.

 

[Vol8188]

Basically when society demands it.

So suppression is acceptable as long as you have majority support? You're walking dangerously close to promoting gang-rape, slavery, and the holocaust as being okay because the majority were in support.

 

[luthervol]

If it’s speech, it’s covered in the Bill of Rights.

Luckily, making sure drugs are safe isn’t speech.

Misleading and false information is certainly under the umbrella of speech.

 

[luthervol]

And the owners of the platform made it clear where they stood. In return they get called out and pressured by the federal govt to shut down any info the feds don't agree with. This is about the fed gov interfering where they do not belong

I understand that you see it that way.

 

[Vol8188]

I understand that you see it that way.

Lmfao. Which part of that is he incorrect about? The federal government did openly call for the platform to do more than the platform wanted to do?

 

[luthervol]

Frequently is a lie and there are clearly stated rules.

I believe in stated rules and their enforcement. You may even decide at some point you need to change or update the rules....for whatever reason.

 

[luthervol]

It’s usually based on behavior and not content though. You’ve got to really violate TOS and be a major turd to get run from the Politics Forum lol.

As it should be.
But there is a limit.....as there should be.

 

[luthervol]

Thinking government should be the answer to regulate speech is basically saying the population is too stupid to think for themselves.

This same view is how we get the thought that minorities aren’t capable of acquiring a photo ID.

Spot on........The government is the answer only when the population is too stupid.

 

[GAVol]

Misleading and false information is certainly under the umbrella of speech.

There’s a clear distinction between commercial speech and individual speech with respect to product claims.

I can’t think of anyone who was prosecuted merely for being wrong unless it was intentionally libelous or slanderous.

 

[ButchPlz]

By this Luther guy's reasoning we ought to be totally shuttering all social media and traditional media for allowing anyone to post anything that may prove wrong.

I may actually agree.

 

[rjd970]

I'm sure it was brought up years ago, but no one much cared because Rogan was a relative unknown. The story would have died out long before most even knew there was a story.
The story coming out again now has less to do with COVID and more to do with the responsibilities of people who own platforms that provide information to millions.

So it’s just a wild coincidence it is brought up now?

 

[McDad]

And my original point that the Rogan racial stuff is driven not by real outrage, but by blowback from the Covid statements made on his show is the real motivator still stands. Otherwise, this would have been brought up years ago when he actually said it.

The drama queens and outrage warriors are being played like puppets here to further a Covid agenda and it’s ridiculous. Luther and Monty trying to sell this as something else to the point where we are comparing free speech to business regulation is the height of absurdity. At some point a reasonable person would step back and say “wait a minute, the position I’m arguing here makes no sense”.

I grew up in a time where we were force fed the idea "if you don't like what is on the radio or tv, change the channel or turn it off". Back then, it was the conservative element demanding for things to be cancelled. And that element will take that approach again when it suits their agenda. Today, it is the liberal element who demand the programming change (which is ironic considering the liberal sects were the ones telling us to change the channel or turn it off back in the day).

 

[luthervol]

So suppression is acceptable as long as you have majority support? You're walking dangerously close to promoting gang-rape, slavery, and the holocaust as being okay because the majority were in support.

The majority have said those things are unacceptable.
You're walking dangerously close to proving my point.

 

[Vol8188]

The majority have said those things are unacceptable.
You're walking dangerously close to proving my point.

Your point is what exactly? The majority approved of all of those things at some point. The majority of participants in a gang rape still approve

 

[ButchPlz]

I grew up in a time where we were force fed the idea "if you don't like what is on the radio or tv, change the channel or turn it off". Back then, it was the conservative element demanding for things to be cancelled. And that element will take that approach again when it suits their agenda. Today, it is the liberal element who demand the programming change (which is ironic considering the liberal sects were the ones telling us to change the channel or turn it off back in the day).

Today's left is the overzealous Christian right of my young childhood with the benefit of near total corporate support across the board.

 

[ButchPlz]

Your point is what exactly?

Rah rah rabble dabble doobidy doo I think.

 

[McDad]

People aren’t mad that he’s bringing on dissenting voices from qualified experts, and if you think that’s the case you’re missing the point entirely. It’s the proveable (and dangerous) misinformation that certain guests push on the show that people are against. It’s pretty simple

Simple. Don't listen.

 

[ButchPlz]

Simple. Don't listen.

Especially because this particular brand of "misinformation" quite literally only impacts those that choose to follow it.

 

[Vol8188]

Basically when society demands it.

Spot on........The government is the answer only when the population is too stupid.

So government should get involved if:

A. The people demand it
or
B.. The people are too stupid to demand it.

Sounds like your answer, like always, is government involvement in all cases.

 

[ButchPlz]

So government should get involved if:

A. The people demand it
or
B.. The people are too stupid to demand it.

Sounds like your answer, like always, is government involvement in all cases.

Incoming contradictory post from our resident poster with short term memory loss.

 

[luthervol]

There’s a clear distinction between commercial speech and individual speech with respect to product claims.

I can’t think of anyone who was prosecuted merely for being wrong unless it was intentionally libelous or slanderous.

Should a person be allowed to falsely and dangerously promote the purchase and use of a drug with misinformation on Spotify?

 

[utvolpj]

The majority have said those things are unacceptable.
You're walking dangerously close to proving my point.

Because they violate the rights of others. Having a different belief wrt scientific findings does not

 

[Jxn Vol]

Spot on........The government is the answer only when the population is too stupid.

My gosh if reality hit you in the face you wouldn’t know it.

The population isn’t too stupid. Even though the elites on the left think so. They know so much that isn’t true.

 

[ButchPlz]

Should a person be allowed to falsely and dangerously promote the purchase and use of a drug with misinformation on Spotify?

We've already got plenty of that on Spotify, you advocating for the removal of every song referencing drug use?

 

[luthervol]

Your point is what exactly? The majority approved of all of those things at some point. The majority of participants in a gang rape still approve

The larger majority would disapprove.