Well, some of us DO care and that you don't like him doesn't mean that he should be censored. This is the position of a moral busybody.
Here's a thought: If you don't like his show...don't listen to it. Start your own show that points out everything you think Joe Rogan gets wrong. I'm pretty certain that if you were to do that, he wouldn't be calling for you to be censored.
I didn't say I don't like him, I said he should be censored by Spotify.
What I think of his show is irrelevant, If he's spreading harmful lies, Spotify shouldn't support that, and should prevent him (and anyone else) from using their platform to do it.
We have the US Surgeon General, who has sworn an auth to uphold and defend the US Constitution, saying that a US citizen's rights should be infringed? And he's suggesting to a corporation that they may want to do that for him?
Impeach him.
There is no difference between a high government official directly censoring someone and a corporation doing on that official's behalf.
Frankly it's quite sad and scary, the fact that some "government officials" like this one seem to think the US Constitution is some "guideline" and not something that people have shed blood for, gone to war for and many millions have died over all in the sake of freedom and for us to be free. All to be thrown away and disregarded?
I wonder why he/his family immigrated to the US? Was it for the freedom of opportunity? It seemed it worked out well for him only to then trample on the constitution and demanding US citizens be censored? The founding fathers who risked their lives must be rolling in their graves I would imagine.
He should be ashamed of himself and seriously reflect on his stance and choices. Vivek Murthy should resign immediately.
Could you say specifically what in his quote makes you think he's acting as if the US Constitution is a guideline? I'm guessing he knows the first amendment and the law and it seems unlikely that he would actually verbally state that the government should actively violate the constitution.
Remember, the US has powers it doesn't exercise that allow it to limit the freedom of americans within a constitutional context. And it also has the ability to message to people in ways that cast doubt on things it does not want people to believe.
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
You have a US Government official specifically saying "Joe Rogan Must be Censored" which took an oath to uphold the constitution. He is paid from US tax dollars and is supposed representative of the people. No government official should call to censor anyone, this is literally KGB/H1tl3R/China Dictator type stuff and should frighten and scare the living crap out of everyone.
Joe Rogan hosted free speech from medical and world renowned vaccine experts who have been de-platformed, censored, bullied, fired, threatened with medical licenses being revoked...etc. etc.
Do you not know anything about history? "Today it's me, tomorrow it's you."
I stand with Joe Rogan, free speech, free thinkers, the right to say and write what you think wither I disagree or agree with it. If you can't tolerate that, then you might as well live in a George Orwell 1984 world. Not me.
I clicked thru the video and listened to him. While I don't thikn what he said is intelligent at all, at best, what he said is "you have no right to spread misinformation".
That's different from calling for somebody to be censored. And even if he's technically incorrect to say that people don't have the right to spread misinformation, there certainly are limits on the first amendment that could cover this situation. For example, if Rogan said something super-duper irresponsible, like "Everybody should immediately inject pure bleach into their bloodstream. It will cure covid", that is in fairly strong grounds for the first amendment not applying/being restricted in this case.
He also said "We use the POWER that we have to limit the spread of that misinformation." These are extremely hostile and dangerous words from a US Official, no?
But the thing is, Rogan did not say something super irresponsible like you are inventing and instead has actually has hosted medical and world renowned vaccine experts that had very intelligent things to say, backed with data, fact and logic. So why are you saying things or inventing scenarios that are completely false?
Just a reminder for you...
"Censorship and Propaganda was another important factor to the success for Hitler's dictatorship. Everything that was going to get in touch with the public, including Radios, the Press, the lessons they teach at school, the art works people paint, the movies they play at cinemas all had to be censored first before audiences could watch it."
No, those aren't hostile and dangerous words. You're just getting overexcited.
The scenario I explained is one in which a government may legitimately censor somebody because it exceeds the normal restraints of First Amendment. It's pretty clear that Rogan didn't say that. You may note in everything I'm saying, I'm not supporting censoring Rogan. If the US government wants to oppose his message, clearly they should just spend time on talk shows saying the message they want the public to hear (like they do). I do think Rogan was irresponsible with ivermectin, but it does not reach the point where the government could legitimately censor him.
You don't need you to keep reminding of quotes about hitler. It doesn't somehow make your argument stronger to explain how the Nazis came to be.
Again the problem to me is he is clearly pointing and publicly asking "Big Tech" to censor more, "deplatform" more...take more control of "right" speech vs "wrong" speech. The fact that even a government official calls it "Big Tech"; he publicly calling this current "curation" of companies a M0n0poly? I thought monopolies are ill…3gal?
And your point even with Ivermectin, a treatment option that not only costs pennies a dose (no profit in that for "Big Pharma" eh?)...but what exactly was the preferred treatment guidelines for Covid aside from taking a "kind of effective", "doesn't stop the spread", "Costed global tax payers b1ll1i0nz", "can still go to the hospital" vaccines? Was it because B1G Ph4rma didn't make their $xxx...$xxxx "treatment pill" yet?
And what exactly was irresponsible with Ivermectin? Did you have a problem with Monoclonal anti-bodies as well? You do realize this had interesting data and science coming out of Japan, India and other countries who deployed and utilized these drug trials? Isn't that how global science and "Open Science" should work? Smart scientists putting out shared research papers, working together to collaborate on new treatments, try different things, new studies and truly show smart human effectiveness and collaboration? Instead this has been ANYTHING such that, rather a few companies that put out a never-ending number of vaccine doses x billions of people times x dollars…? Also there can be no other effective treatments or ideas otherwise...if not, you must be CENSORED by "BIG TECH" for calling out "BIG PHARMA".
Come on now. This doesn't seem like a government or government official of "We the people"; more like, "Do what we say or else you should be censored". Maybe it is I, disillusioned? I thought it was Thomas Jefferson who said "When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty" - but I believe some folks took his monument down about a year ago in some protests? Hmm, how ironic? I guess my idea of the United States of America was the people here were tired of some Kings sh1t and an Authoritarian government telling them what the darn to do, so they formed a Constitutional Republic which stated every man is a King in this land and no one can tell them what to do? Is that not the law, Common Law I believe? Regardless, I always viewed "America" as way more badass than letting some handful of "Big Tech" and "Big Pharma" corporate PAX backed politicians and government tell you what to say or do.
I think at the very core root, you have a different view and vision of the government than I do. I personally don’t want any person or any government telling me what to do, what I should think, how I should think, and what is “right” speak or “wrong speak. And I prefer to see all the data and all the science, but somehow this has been blocked for 75 years? What?! Oh. Am I not allowed to write that? Is that not true?
he's saying the media "shouldn't spread misinformation". this is very far from censorship. This is the Surgeon General Surgeon Generaling.
Censorship is when the government makes it illegal to publish information. It is NOT when a given media outlet decides not to publish something. Large and small media outlets around the world make the decision not to publish lies as a matter of daily practice - that's their choice.
Others decide to publish lies, and they are free to carry Joe Rogan.
He also said "We use the POWER that we have to limit the spread of that misinformation." These are extremely hostile and dangerous words from a US Official, no?
Who are you to determine what are/are not lies and what is/isn't truth? You are obviously following one narrative, but is there not another or other narratives? Is everyone that goes against the "mainstream narrative" automatically wrong, even if there have been world renowned medical experts and other science stating other facts that have been completely de-platformed by these "mainstream media outlets".
Do you think it's healthy that the "mainstream media" is owned by a few powerful funds and small groups of people comprised of board members of the very same medical and pharmaceutical companies? And those very same Super-PACS fund the politicians that get there? There is much cross-over, and lots of potential for conflicts of interests, no? To put your complete trust in one opinion, group, party or sources doesn't seem so healthy or sane to me - but to each their own.
You will not tell me what is misinformation or not. I prefer to hear from all experts of all sides myself. Personally, I'm a free thinker - but if you prefer to be spoon-fed what to and what not to think, this is your choice.
I have read history, I'm aware of the former Communist, Nazi, Authoritarian and Dictatorship regimes - all which started with the control of the media, suppression of free thinkers, speech, intellectuals and controlling ONE NARRATIVE and this is exactly how things start - and how they end or ended...well, wars (Civil and globally) and millions of deaths. Power corrupts, just like water is wet.
"Who are you to determine what are/are not lies and what is/isn't truth?" is an important question to philosophers but it's irrelevant here.
From what I can tell, your fundamental point is that truth is subjective, and governments that censor trivial things slide down a slippery slope to totalitarianism, so we should avoid that by allowing unrestricted free speech, which will protect us if the government turns out to be technically wrong. There's another point about the media but it is fairly close to conspiracy theory (for example, top pharma company boards don't overlap with mainstream media).
Another issue is that some sides don't have experts. For example, the pro-ivermectin side doesn't have experts. It has a small number of confused doctors and a large number of ignorant people, and a teeny-tiny number of people who have the ability to run a large-scale controlled clinical trial, but aren't getting involved.
Let's bring it down to a simple situation. The nation faces an existential risk. scientists convince the government they understand the cause and have a solution that will eliminate the risk. the process will involve temporary suspension of civil liberties that can be suspended when the risk is gone. However, Joe Rogan has an expert on his show that says the scientists are wrong.
At that point, I literally just trust that I made the right decision electing a person who will make the right decision (in the case of an existential threat, it's OK to suspend civil liberties temporarily). What do you do? Listen to the expert as the world dies?
24 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 73.4 ms ] threadThere are already a whole host of things Joe Rogan can't say on his podcast, you just don't know about them because he can't say them. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
Here's a thought: If you don't like his show...don't listen to it. Start your own show that points out everything you think Joe Rogan gets wrong. I'm pretty certain that if you were to do that, he wouldn't be calling for you to be censored.
What I think of his show is irrelevant, If he's spreading harmful lies, Spotify shouldn't support that, and should prevent him (and anyone else) from using their platform to do it.
Impeach him.
There is no difference between a high government official directly censoring someone and a corporation doing on that official's behalf.
I wonder why he/his family immigrated to the US? Was it for the freedom of opportunity? It seemed it worked out well for him only to then trample on the constitution and demanding US citizens be censored? The founding fathers who risked their lives must be rolling in their graves I would imagine.
He should be ashamed of himself and seriously reflect on his stance and choices. Vivek Murthy should resign immediately.
Remember, the US has powers it doesn't exercise that allow it to limit the freedom of americans within a constitutional context. And it also has the ability to message to people in ways that cast doubt on things it does not want people to believe.
Amendment I "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
You have a US Government official specifically saying "Joe Rogan Must be Censored" which took an oath to uphold the constitution. He is paid from US tax dollars and is supposed representative of the people. No government official should call to censor anyone, this is literally KGB/H1tl3R/China Dictator type stuff and should frighten and scare the living crap out of everyone.
Joe Rogan hosted free speech from medical and world renowned vaccine experts who have been de-platformed, censored, bullied, fired, threatened with medical licenses being revoked...etc. etc.
Do you not know anything about history? "Today it's me, tomorrow it's you."
I stand with Joe Rogan, free speech, free thinkers, the right to say and write what you think wither I disagree or agree with it. If you can't tolerate that, then you might as well live in a George Orwell 1984 world. Not me.
That's different from calling for somebody to be censored. And even if he's technically incorrect to say that people don't have the right to spread misinformation, there certainly are limits on the first amendment that could cover this situation. For example, if Rogan said something super-duper irresponsible, like "Everybody should immediately inject pure bleach into their bloodstream. It will cure covid", that is in fairly strong grounds for the first amendment not applying/being restricted in this case.
But the thing is, Rogan did not say something super irresponsible like you are inventing and instead has actually has hosted medical and world renowned vaccine experts that had very intelligent things to say, backed with data, fact and logic. So why are you saying things or inventing scenarios that are completely false?
Just a reminder for you...
"Censorship and Propaganda was another important factor to the success for Hitler's dictatorship. Everything that was going to get in touch with the public, including Radios, the Press, the lessons they teach at school, the art works people paint, the movies they play at cinemas all had to be censored first before audiences could watch it."
The scenario I explained is one in which a government may legitimately censor somebody because it exceeds the normal restraints of First Amendment. It's pretty clear that Rogan didn't say that. You may note in everything I'm saying, I'm not supporting censoring Rogan. If the US government wants to oppose his message, clearly they should just spend time on talk shows saying the message they want the public to hear (like they do). I do think Rogan was irresponsible with ivermectin, but it does not reach the point where the government could legitimately censor him.
You don't need you to keep reminding of quotes about hitler. It doesn't somehow make your argument stronger to explain how the Nazis came to be.
And your point even with Ivermectin, a treatment option that not only costs pennies a dose (no profit in that for "Big Pharma" eh?)...but what exactly was the preferred treatment guidelines for Covid aside from taking a "kind of effective", "doesn't stop the spread", "Costed global tax payers b1ll1i0nz", "can still go to the hospital" vaccines? Was it because B1G Ph4rma didn't make their $xxx...$xxxx "treatment pill" yet?
And what exactly was irresponsible with Ivermectin? Did you have a problem with Monoclonal anti-bodies as well? You do realize this had interesting data and science coming out of Japan, India and other countries who deployed and utilized these drug trials? Isn't that how global science and "Open Science" should work? Smart scientists putting out shared research papers, working together to collaborate on new treatments, try different things, new studies and truly show smart human effectiveness and collaboration? Instead this has been ANYTHING such that, rather a few companies that put out a never-ending number of vaccine doses x billions of people times x dollars…? Also there can be no other effective treatments or ideas otherwise...if not, you must be CENSORED by "BIG TECH" for calling out "BIG PHARMA".
Come on now. This doesn't seem like a government or government official of "We the people"; more like, "Do what we say or else you should be censored". Maybe it is I, disillusioned? I thought it was Thomas Jefferson who said "When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty" - but I believe some folks took his monument down about a year ago in some protests? Hmm, how ironic? I guess my idea of the United States of America was the people here were tired of some Kings sh1t and an Authoritarian government telling them what the darn to do, so they formed a Constitutional Republic which stated every man is a King in this land and no one can tell them what to do? Is that not the law, Common Law I believe? Regardless, I always viewed "America" as way more badass than letting some handful of "Big Tech" and "Big Pharma" corporate PAX backed politicians and government tell you what to say or do.
I think at the very core root, you have a different view and vision of the government than I do. I personally don’t want any person or any government telling me what to do, what I should think, how I should think, and what is “right” speak or “wrong speak. And I prefer to see all the data and all the science, but somehow this has been blocked for 75 years? What?! Oh. Am I not allowed to write that? Is that not true?
Censorship is when the government makes it illegal to publish information. It is NOT when a given media outlet decides not to publish something. Large and small media outlets around the world make the decision not to publish lies as a matter of daily practice - that's their choice.
Others decide to publish lies, and they are free to carry Joe Rogan.
Who are you to determine what are/are not lies and what is/isn't truth? You are obviously following one narrative, but is there not another or other narratives? Is everyone that goes against the "mainstream narrative" automatically wrong, even if there have been world renowned medical experts and other science stating other facts that have been completely de-platformed by these "mainstream media outlets".
Do you think it's healthy that the "mainstream media" is owned by a few powerful funds and small groups of people comprised of board members of the very same medical and pharmaceutical companies? And those very same Super-PACS fund the politicians that get there? There is much cross-over, and lots of potential for conflicts of interests, no? To put your complete trust in one opinion, group, party or sources doesn't seem so healthy or sane to me - but to each their own.
You will not tell me what is misinformation or not. I prefer to hear from all experts of all sides myself. Personally, I'm a free thinker - but if you prefer to be spoon-fed what to and what not to think, this is your choice.
I have read history, I'm aware of the former Communist, Nazi, Authoritarian and Dictatorship regimes - all which started with the control of the media, suppression of free thinkers, speech, intellectuals and controlling ONE NARRATIVE and this is exactly how things start - and how they end or ended...well, wars (Civil and globally) and millions of deaths. Power corrupts, just like water is wet.
From what I can tell, your fundamental point is that truth is subjective, and governments that censor trivial things slide down a slippery slope to totalitarianism, so we should avoid that by allowing unrestricted free speech, which will protect us if the government turns out to be technically wrong. There's another point about the media but it is fairly close to conspiracy theory (for example, top pharma company boards don't overlap with mainstream media).
Another issue is that some sides don't have experts. For example, the pro-ivermectin side doesn't have experts. It has a small number of confused doctors and a large number of ignorant people, and a teeny-tiny number of people who have the ability to run a large-scale controlled clinical trial, but aren't getting involved.
Let's bring it down to a simple situation. The nation faces an existential risk. scientists convince the government they understand the cause and have a solution that will eliminate the risk. the process will involve temporary suspension of civil liberties that can be suspended when the risk is gone. However, Joe Rogan has an expert on his show that says the scientists are wrong.
At that point, I literally just trust that I made the right decision electing a person who will make the right decision (in the case of an existential threat, it's OK to suspend civil liberties temporarily). What do you do? Listen to the expert as the world dies?
a human being?