I like you Paisley. You seem to stand for something. I don't know what, but you have spunk.

For some reason, it seems you choose to base your entire response off an idea that I clearly never stated or implied. I never said that Joe Rogan's free speech is being violated.

I did say that they (Joni and Neil) are virtue signaling and because of their egotism, are unwittingly working to dissolve the foundations of open discourse and free public debate.

I've already said that both Joni and Neil have a right to do as they did. I simply feel it is not moral. They are choosing to use their right to free expression to render void another person's right to free expression, albeit through legal capitalist means.

I urge you to consider the claim that legality is not morality.

You seem to agree with Joni and Neil that Joe Rogan is spreading lies and false hoods around C19. I've not seen this at all. I have seen an honest individual attempt to glean truth from the C19 situation by having people much more intelligent than he come on to his show and speak openly so that people can make their own decisions.

Why cancel him? Why not have other intelligent people come on and refute what he is saying in an open forum? In all likelihood, neither Joni nor Neil have much more understanding about our global predicament than Rogan, which is why I feel what they are doing currently is disingenuous moral grandstanding. They are simply "trusting" the "science".

In the 1800s, Harvard biological "scientists" theorized that black brains were inferior to white brains. Whole papers were written and distributed about the subject matter until it became accepted as scholastic doctrine.

This information was disseminated to the public, widely read, and subsequently believed. To this day, you still have people that believe this. This was a mainstream narrative. This was the "science".

Science to me means being open to the possibility of error. It means being open to the possibility that what is "true" today may not be so tomorrow.

If Rogan is guilty of spreading MISinformation, then let's talk about the blatant DISinformation purposely spread by this government behind the Iraq and Vietnam wars (there are many more) and the U.S. backed overt overthrow of at least 80 countries in addition to the covert overthrow of at least 60 countries.

Because in each of these cases, the U.S. domestic population was sold a shoddy baloney story about democracy, justice, and humanity. And like sheep to the slaughter, we fall for it every time.

Lastly, through a legal concept called "selective incorporation", the Supreme Court has slowly guaranteed that states must abide by the Bill of rights in protecting citizens.

I'd like you to take a look at the following cases which were appealed to the Supreme Court regarding the 1st amendment.

If one looks at the opinions authored by both liberal and conservative judges, one will understand the faulty rational behind Joni and Neil's dissent approach.

Again, what they are doing IS legal. However, they ARE subtly undermining and stifling the free flow of open speech.

Snyder v. Phelps

McCullen v. Coakley

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

After you've read over them, come back and let's talk about the nuances of speech and expression under the 1st amendment.