I am a free speech absolutist. The answer to speech you don't like is more speech, not censorship.

Say I'm an interviewer running a podcast about SaaS startups. Which is more useful?

1. I interview a handful of people who have differing opinions on what it takes to lead a SaaS startup who have all had successful exist, but have differing opinions on key issues. Maybe throw in a few people who have experience working in that type of environment, but maybe not leading, if you want a little more variety.

2. I interview someone who has led a successful exit like in (1), but I also interview a full time commission visual artist who has never worked at a SaaS startup. I give both their ideas on how to run a SaaS startup equal weight, even when the visual artist isn't making any sense in the context of the conversation or is spewing nonsense in the context of the conversation.

Joe does (2). They are both "free speech", but only one is actually useful.

When did "useful" become a metric for this podcast?

Number 1 is not very good because you're only taking to people who had successful exits so you're already skewing the conversation.

Skewing it how? To people who probably have good perspective on the issue?

I'm not… not anymore… after observing stuff like this. Like Joe, like some of his guests, like the results of how things have shaken out.

Notably, free speech absolutism is impossible to refute if everyone is arguing in good faith. Since quite a few influential political actors are demonstrably not, and are following well-defined tactics dating back to various fascist regimes such as those who produced WWII, it is insane to pretend everyone is arguing in good faith.

And it is both instructive and dismaying to see that the people most obviously arguing in bad faith have a tendency to insist, and get others to insist, that free speech must be absolute and that everyone must be taken with the assumption that they're arguing in good faith.

Tactically, it makes perfect sense, but it's a hell of an exploit.

The bottom line is I don't trust you to decide what should be censored. You don't trust me.

There is no workable censorship regime that does not devolve into ideological warfare.

Please don't spread confusion about what "free speech" means. I'm sure you are not actually confused about this, so please do not pretend to be.

Having some people not appear on a given podcast is not a "free speech" issue. Choosing to not be a dangerous idiot by having dangerous idiots on your show during a pandemic is not "censorship" or anything remotely close to censorship as it is commonly, and correctly, understood.

> Please don't spread confusion about what "free speech" means.

I'm not confused.

> Choosing to not be a dangerous idiot by having dangerous idiots on your show during a pandemic is not "censorship" or anything remotely close to censorship as it is commonly, and correctly, understood.

When someone decides for me that "dangerous idiots" should not have a voice -- for whatever justification -- I'm against them having the ability to act on that impulse. The wonderful thing about free speech is that if you don't like it, you're free not to listen to it.

Every censor has started from the premise that they're doing good. I don't agree with your opinions, and I'm not so feeble-minded as to be unable to decide for myself what I see.

They weren't opinions. I stated facts about what "free speech" applies to, and what it doesn't. You pretending to not understand it does not change those facts. Neither does your repeating your contrary-to-fact, silly assertions, which have nothing to do with actual government restrictions on speech.

Let me just reiterate this, on the one-in-a-million chance that you actually don't get it: Joe Rogan can restrict the speech of whomever he fucking wants, for ANY reason, and that does NOT constitute any actual restraint on anyone's "free speech" rights.

You're the only one bringing the Government into this.

The government has been leaning on to social media companies telling them to self-censor or the government will do it for them.

And none of that is what this discussion was ever about.

Conflating criticism with calls for government censorship is a dishonest rhetorical tactic.

And who picks the "dangerous idiots"? You? Your favorite authority?

Ha ha.

Yes, more speech is always the answer. Which is why the unmoderated internet is a such a bastion of enlightened, thoughtful discourse.

This has nothing to do with censorship. This person is saying it is irresponsible for Rogan to entertain and provide a platform for these things.

And irresponsible people should be censored.

Lol.

I'm all for free speech in the sense that you have the right to say what you want without retribution from the government. Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to an audience.

Looks like your comment is losing its right to an audience

You clearly read it so maybe not.

Speech such as "this guy is full of it, don't listen to him"?

Which is fine to say as long as you are not making it so people can't listen to him if they want it.

There's a vast gulf between "Rogan should be more careful about bringing on and platforming people especially if he's going to support or validate what they say" and "Joe Rogan shouldn't be allowed to do his podcast."

Also the absolutist position ignores the limited capacity both in raw time and cognitively to take in information and that pushing people to do better about not spewing out or supporting bullshit is also free speech..

Equating any criticism of the strategies pushed by the medical establishment as "antivaxx" is just as counterproductive as calling everything "racist" or "transphobic" or "homophobic" or any of the other epithets being bandied around by the new puritans. Words have meanings, these meanings can change over time (language evolves) but forcing them to change to fit a given narrative leads to an unhealthy political and social climate. It is what Orwell wrote about in "1984", what Solzhenitsyn wrote about in "The First Circle", what Bradbury wrote about in "Fahrenheit 451", none of which were meant as user manuals for a healthy society.