Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Krystal and Saagar: Spotify Employees Want To CENSOR Joe Rogan's Podcast" video.

My goodness. Where are all the people who were ready to prosecute Netflix over "Mignonnes" just, like, yesterday?
3
@seandewaal7980 It has to be an incitement to imminent violence against an identifiable person or specific group of people to be prohibited. Nadine Strossen wrote a truly great book about it. I don't agree with everything she says, but that book is powerful. She claims hate speech laws always backfire, and she provides a ton of evidence to back it up. I think there may be ways to restrict some hate speech, but anyone who wants to restrict it needs to read her book first. The cure is usually worse than the disease. It makes more sense to counter speech you don't like with more speech, not censorship. Threatening language is not a true threat. You can meet it with more speech.
2
@barbershopboy05 No, Alex Jones was found liable. That does make a difference. Spotify's lawyers will now want to comb through any content where he gets to speak, to make sure Spotify is in the clear. I don't think Jones should be censored in the future for protected speech, just because he once engaged in defamation in the past. But what he did should make your stomach turn.
1
@seandewaal7980 Oh my goodness, thank you so much! Jones was found liable, for very good reason. Incitement to violence, true threats, and so forth, are, after all, pragmatic standards. It's not so much a matter of broadening the standards than of taking real care to apply them to the facts, and not shirk away from protecting real people from real dangers if we can do that, and remain principled.
1
Oh no, I hope not. And I'm not a fan. Sinister stuff.
1
I just have a question: do these employees have the right to start their own YouTube channel and express themselves? Or are they bound by nondisclosure and noncompetition agreements? I think they're wrong -- but can they express THEIR views elsewhere, or will they be fired from their jobs? Trying to censor rather than add your own voice is (almost) always wrong -- wrong when it's speech the First Amendment would protect, even if you aren't the government. Don't like something that someone said? Add your voice, don't try to limit theirs.
1
@Sandy Jones You mean like when Ted Cruz wanted to hit Netflix with criminal charges just the other day?
1
@Sandy Jones Netflix didn't produce it. It is not an American film. I'm not defending it. I haven't seen it, and have no basis to defend or condemn it. Are you a narcissistic whiny child who sends in federal agents to stop everything you don't like? Because what you don't like is pure evil, and what other people don't like is based on their narcissism?
1
@Sandy Jones So. None of this is up for discussion. What matters is who can get the Outrage Meter to go higher. This involves many adjectives: "whiny, narcissistic, vile, disgusting, evil" . . . I think you win.
1
@Sandy Jones You do know Cruz was grandstanding, don't you? You get that part?
1
@Sandy Jones I'm not defending Netflix. Nor do I subscribe. Are you defending a man who sent crowds over to the bereaved families of Sandy Hook victims to harass them and accuse them of being fakes? Is that what conservatives support? See. Two can play the Outrage Game.
1
@Sandy Jones "Wow. Actual children were murdered and you support the man who harassed their grieving parents!!!" See how that works? Or DOESN'T.
1
@Sandy Jones If Netflix employees protest a film they sincerely believe exploits children, good for them. It's not being whiny or entitled or narcissistic. They are not throwing a tantrum. They should not shut up and get another job.
1
@Sandy Jones Mm hmm. Because you are right and everyone else is evil. You don't know what the internal discussion at Spotify consisted in, because you were not privy to it. You believe the media account of that internal discussion that you want to believe. But we all know the media distorts most stories. You do not know what Alex Jones did because you did not read any of the court documents. You don't know whether "Cuties" should be banned or prosecuted because you did not watch it (you have an absolute right to boycott it -- but then it makes little sense to denounce it as if you saw it), and if there is a trial, the jury must watch the whole movie and the people who made it must have an opportunity to tell their side in court. There is no law against "commies."
1
@Sandy Jones And yeah, if Netflix employees believe that film, or any film, exploits children, and they protest it, GOOD FOR THEM! Even we agree on something. :)
1
Joe Rogan did make a comment about the wildfires that could have gotten someone killed. He retracted it and apologized. I wouldn't put prior restraints on his show for that. Freedom of speech means freedom to make a mistake and then correct it. But you're all acting like these are simple questions when they are not.
1
@rh81454 But this is giving them CREDIT -- if they care about anything more than about money, that deserves some respect. You never see that happen. Krystal gave a balanced view here. Saagar, not so much.
1
@rh81454 Maybe some people are careful not to overspend and have decent emergency savings just so they can live by their principles. Maybe it's about self-discipline. Gee I remember when conservatives had that. I was a kid back then.
1
TheStormfall The employees were there before Joe Rogan. They can voice whatever concerns they want. Management can say "no." The thing about platforms is not so much that they are "free to leave," but that they are free to start their own and say what they think -- unless management forced a noncompetition agreement and a nondisclosure agreement on them. You don't know what contracts any of these people have signed.
1
@rh81454 What do you mean "what?" Your question is a pseudo-question. It makes no sense.
1
@rh81454 Oh really? So, the employees can't start their own podcast, on their own time and their own channel, independently of their job, and say whatever it is they want to say? They should be fired -- to protect free speech??
1
@rh81454 Should Netflix employees who object to Cuties -- or The Exorcist, or Taxi Driver -- be fired?
1
@rh81454 Joe Rogan did say something that could have gotten someone killed -- concerning the wildfires. He made an offhand remark, accusing certain people of domestic terrorism and ecocide. Of course he corrected himself and apologized. I don't see a reason to censor him for that. But I wonder if you care only based on whose ox is being gored.
1
@rh81454 No, it's not. I disagree with prior restraints on speech, like these people proposed. But once the podcast is released, can these employees criticize it? Not censor, but criticize? How about their freedom of speech?
1
@rh81454 Should Netflix employees have to quit? Why not? Maybe Cuties is more profitable than you'd like to believe.
1
@rh81454 But that's exactly what I said. Do these employees have a right to start their own podcast, on their own time? Or is that against some noncompetition agreement they had to sign to work there? If they can start their own podcast, and fact check ANYBODY they want, on their OWN time, then they should do that. Not complain, but do. Not censor someone else's show, but put out their own show.
1
@rh81454 I agree. But that wasn't the question. Can they criticize a Joe Rogan episode?
1
@rh81454 Okay, then money is more important than freedom. Because on their own time, they should have the freedom to start their own podcasts and criticize anyone they want on matters of public concern, including Joe Rogan. Joe Rogan is not a sacred cow. If he's really so good, criticism won't hurt him but improve him. Then to have freedom, you first have to make serious money for someone. Otherwise, you have no freedom. This is different from MSM, or DNC logic, etc., how? Remind me again.
1
@rh81454 You keep deflecting when you know exactly what I'm saying -- and I bet you don't really disagree. It makes more sense to start your own podcast than to try to bend the people at your job to your will. It's more independent. It's entrepreneurial. It's in keeping with the spirit of the First Amendment.
1
If Netflix employees protested offering "Cuties" on its platform, your reaction would be . . . to see how much money the movie can bring in first? I love how people think these are simple questions.
1