Politicians trying to censor Broadcasters

[OldFlame]

He does not want to punish anyone. He does not want to be associated with a service he does not agree with.

So what he doesn't agree with is Spotify not removing Rogan from their platform because of his speech, he wants Spotify to punish Rogan for his speech by eliminating him from their platform, is there any other way I can phrase it where you will understand? He could have quietly removed his music from Spotify and stayed in obscurity, but he had to make it this huge public announcement, punish Rogan or I'm gone. Do you not understand he started an huge movement to punish Rogan, to put as much pressure on Spotify to remove Rogan as he could, and for once these fascist lunatics didn't get their way. No one said that he didn't have a right to remove his music if he disagreed, he has no right to demand that someone else be silenced, which is exactly what he did.

 

[BlindBoo]

My Computer wont let me listen to that turd. Did President Biden call them up and threaten them with possible legal action if they don't conform to his wishes?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Jenn Paski, The talking voice for the president, said more should be done to silence Joe Rogan.. that’s government influencing people to be shut down.. this is all political, The president should stand up front and say no man or woman should be silenced.. this isn’t someone at a bar telling a drunk to shut up. This is POLICY! Politics.. Very dangerous

I am sure I know your answers, but is it any different than the POTUS or his spokesperson saying the NFL should do more to silence the protest of those kneeling during the national Anthem?

 

[task0778]

A lot of posters on this thread are missing the point, I think. Neil Young can say and do what he wants and nobody here has a problem with that. Nobody, not me, not Monkey's Uncle, not Carlson, not Rogan, not Spotify. Spotify can do what they think is in their best interests too, and nobody has a problem with that either. Are we clear about that? Good.

The problem addressed in this thread is about the gov't attempting to indirectly censure someone who isn't adopting the party line. The gov't is trying to convince or coerce Spotify to drop Rogan, and they want every private business to "do more" to stop what their idea of misinformation is. That is what Psaki is actually trying to do. For them, misinformation is anything that does not jive with what we say is the truth. Our 1st amendment says the gov't cannot abridge our freedom of speech; it does not have a clause that says "if we don't like what you're saying". They can't do that legally, so they try to get others to do it for them. And that is wrong IMHO. That is what this thread is all about.

 

[jbrownson0831]

So what he doesn't agree with is Spotify not removing Rogan from their platform because of his speech, he wants Spotify to punish Rogan for his speech by eliminating him from their platform, is there any other way I can phrase it where you will understand? He could have quietly removed his music from Spotify and stayed in obscurity, but he had to make it this huge public announcement, punish Rogan or I'm gone. Do you not understand he started an huge movement to punish Rogan, to put as much pressure on Spotify to remove Rogan as he could, and for once these fascist lunatics didn't get their way. No one said that he didn't have a right to remove his music if he disagreed, he has no right to demand that someone else be silenced, which is exactly what he did.

And he was backed by Psaki and the White House.....the Gestapo likes them some Neil Young.

 

[OldFlame]

No, he told them to choose between him or Rogan. It was the only way he could legally get his music off the platform due to contrast with his record company

 

[dblack]

He’s removing it because a company won’t silence someone.

And how is that a violation of the Constitution? Think.

 

[Maxnovax]

Yes. That is correct, which is why he had to make his ultimatum. Now you are starting to get it.

Get what? A man told a company to silence somebody with 11 million listeners Daily. Because of political reasons. Jenn Paski Told reporters and the world yesterday that more should be done to silence Joe Rogan. This is very dangerous for society. Stop your nonsense and pretending this isn’t political

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So what he doesn't agree with is Spotify not removing Rogan from their platform because of his speech, he wants Spotify to punish Rogan for his speech by eliminating him from their platform, is there any other way I can phrase it where you will understand?

He does not wish to be associated with Rogan, both of them being on Spotify meant that he was. The only way for him to get off of Spotify was to issue the "him or me" demand.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Get what? A man told a company to silence somebody with 11 million listeners Daily.

No, he did not tell them to silence anyone, he told them to choose between him or Rogan

 

[Harpy Eagle]

‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’ host discusses the ‘political pressure’ surrounding Joe Rogan, Spotify controversy

OP: This is one of the most blatant example of censorship and a violation of the Constitution.

I do not say this often, but I basically agree with Tucker, the POTUS nor his spokesperson should be weighing in on these things at all.

 

[Maxnovax]

I am sure I know your answers, but is it any different than the POTUS or his spokesperson saying the NFL should do more to silence the protest of those kneeling during the national Anthem?

In 1783 if men stood in front of congress and said fuck America, you all are pigs, I have no evidence of what I accuse but fuck you.. what would have happen to them?

 

[Maxnovax]

And how is that a violation of the Constitution? Think.

Because Jen Paski told them to do it.

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

I do not say this often, but I basically agree with Tucker, the POTUS nor his spokesperson should be weighing in on these things at all.

Then why the fuck didn't you just say that and let it be. You always have to veer off into leftwing propaganda bullshit.

 

[dblack]

Because Jen Paski told them to do it.

Told who to do what? You were discussing Neil Young removing hsi music from Spotify. Neil Young can't violate the Constitution. Neither can Spotify.

 

[OldFlame]

He does not wish to be associated with Rogan, both of them being on Spotify meant that he was. The only way for him to get off of Spotify was to issue the "him or me" demand.

So to legally get out of a contract with Spotify, he was required to make a public announcement on every social media platform that if Rogan wasn't removed and silenced he was canceling his contract? That's your story and you're sticking to it?

 

[Maxnovax]

Told who to do what? You were discussing Neil Young removing hsi music from Spotify. Neil Young can't violate the Constitution. Neither can Spotify.

Correct.. Jen Paski said it’s the view or joe Biden that more should be down to silence joe Rogan.. should we form a special committee to find out who’s encouraging people to silence people?

 

[dblack]

Then why the fuck didn't you just say that and let it be. You always have to veer off into leftwing propaganda bullshit.

Because even when Trumpsters are right, they don't get. And, in not getting it, they clamor for solutions that actually make the problem worse.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So to legally get out of a contract with Spotify, he was required to make a public announcement on every social media platform that if Rogan wasn't removed and silenced he was canceling his contract? That's your story and you're sticking to it?

It was not his contract to cancel, that is why he had to get Spotify to agree to it, along with the record company that owns his music

 

[BlindBoo]

The problem addressed in this thread is about the gov't attempting to indirectly censure someone who isn't adopting the party line.

Sorry that Genie left the bottle.. A lot has changed in 50 or so years.

"President Nixon asserted today that Charles Manson, a hippie cultist now on trial in Cali fornia, “was guilty, directly or indirectly, of eight murders without reason.”

But, faced with criticism that he had prejudged the outcome of the Manson trial, Mr. Nixon, issued a statement on his ar rival here tonight saying that “the last thing I would do is prejudice the legal ‘rights of any person, in any circum stances.”

Nixon Calls Manson Guilty, Later Withdraws Remark (Published 1970)

Nixon, in remarks to newsmen during stopover in Denver on flight from San Clemente to Washington, says C Manson, hippie cultist now on trial in Calif, is 'guilty, directly or indirectly, of 8 murders without reason'; issues statement on arrival in Washington saying he did not intend to prejudge case

www.nytimes.com