Matt, I just listened to your comments on the Callin about what is/isn't "misinformation" on Joe Rogan's show. Did you actually listen to the Robert Malone interview? If so, you might have heard him assert that the pandemic was literally pre-planned for profit and control. You might have also heard Joe rephrase that assertion as sort of …
Matt, I just listened to your comments on the Callin about what is/isn't "misinformation" on Joe Rogan's show. Did you actually listen to the Robert Malone interview? If so, you might have heard him assert that the pandemic was literally pre-planned for profit and control. You might have also heard Joe rephrase that assertion as sort of a fake question, intended to amplify the statement, not to challenge it. This is Alex Jones territory and it crosses a line. I'm not calling for censorship, but come on, to ignore this (and it's by no means an isolated example) you're just avoiding a difficult issue.
For the record, it was McCullough not Malone who said to Rogan that the pandemic was pre-planned and coordinated. Those two interviews -- and throw in the Weinstein's for good measure -- are of a piece and run together in my head.
I really for the life of me don't understand why Rogan is the hill they want to die on for free speech, ignoring that the people that don't like him are also exercising the same free speech. None of this involves the government and therefore free speech doctrine doesn't even apply in the first place.
You make it sound as if Taibbi and Greenwald focus on Rogan to the exclusion of all other concerns around free speech issues. And if you were right that this "is the hill they want to die on" it would be perplexing. The current controversy around Rogan might not be so concerning if not understood from the broader context in which we are seeing a level of censoriousness that the Christian right of the 90's, "Satanic panic" etc pales in comparison to. The coordinated effort that resulted in the Parlor app being shutdown by Amazon, the branding of those who question the official narrative around Covid as "conspiracy theorists" and nutjobs, Democrats demanding more censorship from 'Big Tech' etc,. In my lifetime I have never witnessed such a concerted effort to silence opposing views. Considering everything above, and that none of it should be new to any reader of Greenwald and Taibbi, I can't help but suspect that the bafflement you and others are expressing is disingenuous. Or maybe "for the life of you" you are just too dense to comprehend what is plain for the rest to see.
its not a free speech issue, these are citizens that want to cancel Rogan, not the government. Their voice is as valid as anyone elses and spotify can do what they want. Until they are sanctioned by the government without breaking the law this has zero to do with free speech.
The constitution is a legal doctrine, and doesn't protect you from vague calls by Jen Psaki for platforms to regulate their content. The constitution is only as good as the court and state that enforce it, you seem to have it confused with a sort of philosophical doctrine.
"Until they are sanctioned by the government without breaking the law this has zero to do with free speech."
Being concerned about a censorious trend in the culture need not have anything to do with the First Amendment. Some of us are interested in living in a society where open and lively debate is encouraged because we understand that a functioning collective intelligence necessitates a free flow of ideas. I wonder are all of your values informed by the dictates of the state and what it does or doesn't allow? When you contemplate whether not to do something is this a simple matter of checking the law books?
That said there actually are potential civil liberties implications, considering that state officials Jen Psaki, and the Surgeon General have waded into all of this Rogan mania and have been calling on Spotify to take actions against misinformation etc,.
There was a precedent setting Supreme Court case in the 1960s regarding a bookstore in Rhode Island which ruled that informal notices produced by a state commission which warned that certain publications were in violation of obscenity laws amounted to CENSORSHIP. The commission did NOT forcibly remove products all they did was leave written notice from the commission and the court ruled that the state had violated the plaintiffs First Amendment rights.
Saying " i think they should do more to combat misinformation" isn't a civil liberties offense, it's so vague that it doesn't resemble your example at all. I don't even inherently agree with it, but it's not "censorship" in a legal sense. Ultimately, I don't see any of this as mattering very much at all. I personally see a bigger issue in the anti science trends of much of the media, including Rogan, but also any number of mainstream outlets that misinterpret and mishandle science in general. I do think that citizens have a right to ask spotify to kick rogan off their platform, just as rogan is also free to talk out of his ass on whatever other platform he desires.
I don't think any of this, at least for now, is ever going to result in litigation. I am not contesting whether someone has the right to create pressure campaigns to shut people up, I find it very alarming and think it does not bode well that this is the go to solution of so many in our democratic society. The fact that we have the First Amendment means that we are well positioned to test ideas in public by making our case, lively debate etc,.
I find it disheartening that despite the utility of said freedoms many are resorting to pressure campaigns to silence those whose ideas are found to be offensive or contradict the party line. And yes I think it is fair at this point to refer to it as "the party line", it certainly isn't "the science". There is no such monolithic entity as "The Science". To the extent that the scientific method has been successful it has not been through the forceful suppression of ideas, but through testing hypothesis and open forums of debate where the validity of a criticism was not measured by political force but by the soundness of the argument. Anyone who claims science is on their side doesn't know what it is, especially those who wish to silence others in the name of it. Also, who the fuck is "anti-science"? Anyone who prefers to cook their popcorn in the microwave as oppose to the stovetop, I'm pretty sure, has zero qualms with the scientific method.
again the first amendement is only relevant as a legal doctrine, if you can indeed litigate as a result, there is NO gaurantee that you can speak your bullshit without consequence. In the case of people like Malone, he has more legal exposure due to the fact that he is a doctor, and is giving medical advice that is likely made up. Will he ever face a consequence? also about as likely as Jen Psaki. As far as anti scientific views on Rogan, one of the more concerning was his recent escapade with Jordan Peterson, who is obviously allowed to say whatever he wants, but as someone with a geology degree that works in the field, I do indeed know the science and Peterson 100% wrong. I do think these views are a problem, and that media outlets however casual have a certain responsibility to how they spread these idiotic ideas. A more interesting conversation is one of how platforms like rogans get popular? And what can we do besides "cancelling" that effectively fights against theis kind of deep stupidity
The thing about "crossing the line" of acceptable dialogue about topics such as the origins of this virus is that the line is being drawn by what you think is or isn't feasible. We mostly don't know the answer to the question. Branding a claim as Alex Jones territory is the sort of ad-hominem typically used to distract from the issues being discussed.
I get the impression people forget that episodes of JRE are conversations and can't be equated with MSM products that are specifically designed to disseminate curated information. JRE episodes are nothing like what Alex Jones puts out because when Alex turns the camera on there is a script that has been put together to communicate a specific message. There is no script on JRE, Joe has no plan for how a show will go, and what ensues is very often dialectic.
Matt, I just listened to your comments on the Callin about what is/isn't "misinformation" on Joe Rogan's show. Did you actually listen to the Robert Malone interview? If so, you might have heard him assert that the pandemic was literally pre-planned for profit and control. You might have also heard Joe rephrase that assertion as sort of a fake question, intended to amplify the statement, not to challenge it. This is Alex Jones territory and it crosses a line. I'm not calling for censorship, but come on, to ignore this (and it's by no means an isolated example) you're just avoiding a difficult issue.
For the record, it was McCullough not Malone who said to Rogan that the pandemic was pre-planned and coordinated. Those two interviews -- and throw in the Weinstein's for good measure -- are of a piece and run together in my head.
I really for the life of me don't understand why Rogan is the hill they want to die on for free speech, ignoring that the people that don't like him are also exercising the same free speech. None of this involves the government and therefore free speech doctrine doesn't even apply in the first place.
You make it sound as if Taibbi and Greenwald focus on Rogan to the exclusion of all other concerns around free speech issues. And if you were right that this "is the hill they want to die on" it would be perplexing. The current controversy around Rogan might not be so concerning if not understood from the broader context in which we are seeing a level of censoriousness that the Christian right of the 90's, "Satanic panic" etc pales in comparison to. The coordinated effort that resulted in the Parlor app being shutdown by Amazon, the branding of those who question the official narrative around Covid as "conspiracy theorists" and nutjobs, Democrats demanding more censorship from 'Big Tech' etc,. In my lifetime I have never witnessed such a concerted effort to silence opposing views. Considering everything above, and that none of it should be new to any reader of Greenwald and Taibbi, I can't help but suspect that the bafflement you and others are expressing is disingenuous. Or maybe "for the life of you" you are just too dense to comprehend what is plain for the rest to see.
its not a free speech issue, these are citizens that want to cancel Rogan, not the government. Their voice is as valid as anyone elses and spotify can do what they want. Until they are sanctioned by the government without breaking the law this has zero to do with free speech.
Indeed.
The constitution is a legal doctrine, and doesn't protect you from vague calls by Jen Psaki for platforms to regulate their content. The constitution is only as good as the court and state that enforce it, you seem to have it confused with a sort of philosophical doctrine.
"Until they are sanctioned by the government without breaking the law this has zero to do with free speech."
Being concerned about a censorious trend in the culture need not have anything to do with the First Amendment. Some of us are interested in living in a society where open and lively debate is encouraged because we understand that a functioning collective intelligence necessitates a free flow of ideas. I wonder are all of your values informed by the dictates of the state and what it does or doesn't allow? When you contemplate whether not to do something is this a simple matter of checking the law books?
That said there actually are potential civil liberties implications, considering that state officials Jen Psaki, and the Surgeon General have waded into all of this Rogan mania and have been calling on Spotify to take actions against misinformation etc,.
There was a precedent setting Supreme Court case in the 1960s regarding a bookstore in Rhode Island which ruled that informal notices produced by a state commission which warned that certain publications were in violation of obscenity laws amounted to CENSORSHIP. The commission did NOT forcibly remove products all they did was leave written notice from the commission and the court ruled that the state had violated the plaintiffs First Amendment rights.
Saying " i think they should do more to combat misinformation" isn't a civil liberties offense, it's so vague that it doesn't resemble your example at all. I don't even inherently agree with it, but it's not "censorship" in a legal sense. Ultimately, I don't see any of this as mattering very much at all. I personally see a bigger issue in the anti science trends of much of the media, including Rogan, but also any number of mainstream outlets that misinterpret and mishandle science in general. I do think that citizens have a right to ask spotify to kick rogan off their platform, just as rogan is also free to talk out of his ass on whatever other platform he desires.
I don't think any of this, at least for now, is ever going to result in litigation. I am not contesting whether someone has the right to create pressure campaigns to shut people up, I find it very alarming and think it does not bode well that this is the go to solution of so many in our democratic society. The fact that we have the First Amendment means that we are well positioned to test ideas in public by making our case, lively debate etc,.
I find it disheartening that despite the utility of said freedoms many are resorting to pressure campaigns to silence those whose ideas are found to be offensive or contradict the party line. And yes I think it is fair at this point to refer to it as "the party line", it certainly isn't "the science". There is no such monolithic entity as "The Science". To the extent that the scientific method has been successful it has not been through the forceful suppression of ideas, but through testing hypothesis and open forums of debate where the validity of a criticism was not measured by political force but by the soundness of the argument. Anyone who claims science is on their side doesn't know what it is, especially those who wish to silence others in the name of it. Also, who the fuck is "anti-science"? Anyone who prefers to cook their popcorn in the microwave as oppose to the stovetop, I'm pretty sure, has zero qualms with the scientific method.
again the first amendement is only relevant as a legal doctrine, if you can indeed litigate as a result, there is NO gaurantee that you can speak your bullshit without consequence. In the case of people like Malone, he has more legal exposure due to the fact that he is a doctor, and is giving medical advice that is likely made up. Will he ever face a consequence? also about as likely as Jen Psaki. As far as anti scientific views on Rogan, one of the more concerning was his recent escapade with Jordan Peterson, who is obviously allowed to say whatever he wants, but as someone with a geology degree that works in the field, I do indeed know the science and Peterson 100% wrong. I do think these views are a problem, and that media outlets however casual have a certain responsibility to how they spread these idiotic ideas. A more interesting conversation is one of how platforms like rogans get popular? And what can we do besides "cancelling" that effectively fights against theis kind of deep stupidity
Thank you. Wondering if these are actually soft trolls.
The "What's the big deal? You're over reacting and I am the shining example of sober thinking" troll.
The thing about "crossing the line" of acceptable dialogue about topics such as the origins of this virus is that the line is being drawn by what you think is or isn't feasible. We mostly don't know the answer to the question. Branding a claim as Alex Jones territory is the sort of ad-hominem typically used to distract from the issues being discussed.
I get the impression people forget that episodes of JRE are conversations and can't be equated with MSM products that are specifically designed to disseminate curated information. JRE episodes are nothing like what Alex Jones puts out because when Alex turns the camera on there is a script that has been put together to communicate a specific message. There is no script on JRE, Joe has no plan for how a show will go, and what ensues is very often dialectic.