Hey J, thanks for reading and commenting man.

I agree mostly with you. Except that Joni and Neil are subtly undermining the historical constitutionality of free speech protection. It's about a slow tip toe towards sanctioned speech. To clarify my position:

Ultimately, this situation is about punishing someone financially because you don't agree with their views. Legal, but in this case, immoral.

Joe Rogan is obviously not an evil person and does not seek to poison people's minds. With all of the intelligent people he has on his show, this should be clear.

What is not clear to me is why neither Neil or Joni chose to confront Rogan openly on his show. Why did they not write a letter to Rogan saying, "I want to be on your show to debate with you publicly in an open forum and express my personal discontent about your show and the conversations you allow"?

Why immediately seek to have a man with this kind of following and appeal removed from a major platform which allows open discourse?

I believe it is because we now inhabit a social climate whereby people have become deathly afraid of views that challenge their own narrative. When this happens, today, people immediately move to have opposing voices silenced.

This was not the intent of the framers of the constitution. They wanted free and open discourse. If Joni and Neil do not like Rogan's content, they are free to not watch. If they do not like Spotify for housing Joe Rogan, they may choose not to support Spotify.

Now, in this country, one may choose to express dissent in any number of forms. So Joni and Neil have every right to pressure a major corporation to acquiesce to their demands as they did.

However, to start a public campaign and entice other people who have in all likelihood not watched a single full episode of his show, to disavow their relationship with Spotify is selfish. Again, while their method of dissent is legal, it is disingenuous and not moral.

Were Spotify to go under for this, how many other artists would suffer by losing their income sources and exposure to their own fanbases? But Joni and Neil don't consider this. They have made their money. Their stunt was about satisfying their personal egos, not standing up for what is right.

What is missed here is their reasoning. Spotify is a company which houses tons of artists who have made racist, homophobic, anti-semetic statements. Why have they only now decided to pull their music?

Neil and Joni have accused Joe almost single-handedly of 'misinformation'.

Well who knows what is right surrounding v*****s, adverse side effects, treatments, masking, and this entire pandemic? There has been so much contrary information, even coming from official media sources.

What one must respect about Rogan is that he has, in earnest, generally sought to get to the bottom of a matter by asking questions of people much smarter and knowledgeable than he.

He encourages free thought. I can attest to this as I've watched many of his episodes. His conversations are nuanced and he often calls people on their B.S. if he feels they are illogical.

If Rogan is this singularly monolithic threat to mankind and all things sacrosanct, the boogie man in all of our closets we must at all costs be rid of, then we have lost sight of our priorities as a society.

In regard to free speech, if someone is an open racist, a biggot, anti-semtic, anti-human, whatever unpopular view they may have, I want to know about it. I do not want them silenced.

I need to understand their thinking so that I may expand my own. Using myself as a muse, I'm am "black".

However, I do not fear being called a "n****r". If someone calls me that, I want to speak to them.

Let them keep whatever platform they wish to have. It is up to myself and others to challenge them in open discourse and prove how idiotic they are.

I have 5 albums currently on Spotify (Ascended Breath). I would never threaten to have them removed because I disagreed with another content creator on the platform. That solves nothing.

Each creator still deserves to make a living. One should not be punished simply because of how they think. Thinking changes over time with most people. This isn't to say that all speech should be protected by the constitution.

The Supreme Court has upheld freedom of expression in most cases. The few times it hasn't is when there has been a CLEAR and present danger to the public i.e. the threat of physical violence, advocating overthrow of the government, or interfering with government functions.

Joe's views, while not mainstream, do not constitute a clear and present danger to the public and they have not been proven in a court of law to interfere with government functions. There has simply been too much push back and contrary information from the scientific and medical community that posits as plausible many of the ideas Rogan has entertained.

Plus, I think the man's own personal experience with Covid should serve as a testament to the fact that he does want the best for people.

At most, Rogan is guilty of not kowtowing to established narratives. This, a thought crime, is his only "sin".