Swift kept her stuff off Spotify for years because they didn’t pay artists fairly, so she’s not against her material being pulled for moral reasons. She has two separate “back catalogues” tho, because she’s currently re-recording all her albums after they were sold to Scooter Braun against her wishes. If anything, it’s possible that the original versions are kept there while the “Taylor’s Versions” are deleted.
You can’t say you believe in free speech and in the same breath ask for someone to be censored. That is NOT believing in free speech. And this really is not a free speech issues - it is a putting all your eggs in one basket - that can easily censor you issue.
Yeah, really, it’s Rogan they are seeking to influence, not Spotify.
It’s gonna take a lot of artists abandoning Spotify for Spotify to consider walking away from $100,000,000. (Isn’t it terrible to consider that Joe Fucking Rogan is worth $100,000,000?? I mean: HOW? All you have to do is be a “open-minded” (dunce-like) “bro”? It’s really that simple?)
Indeed! But it is relevant to euansmith’s comment.
First Neil Young pulls his oeuvre, then Joni Mitchell, now Graham Nash. Who’s next? David Crosby and Steven Stills? This is the Laurel Canyon group from the late '60s. Not a peep from anyone more recent.
This isn’t so much a free speech issue as it is a consequences of speech issue.
Spotify has chosen to platform a person who broadcasts Covid misinformation. Those who disapprove of that choice are exercising their own right not to associate with that content and not to associate with the platform which distributes said misinformation.
Free speech has never meant freedom from consequences.
Tl;dr:
well whaddaya know, all it takes is fascists trying to steal an election by making up their own facts, and trying to undo centuries of medical progress for literally no reason at all, to convince us that “free speech” is not the highest possible value and maybe some other things are also important
Free speech is having the choice not to be published with some fascist abetting person. Not to associate with them, not to promote them, not to be part of the business they make money from,
Withdrawing from Spotify is free speech. If they take Arsehole off because of many people refusing to be associated with Arsehole and Spotify losing money, that’s capitalism.
Yes you can. You can defend a person’s right to publish his own material, and you can also defend your own right not to have your stuff published on the same platform. This is no different than telling a host that you find one of the other guests offensive, and will not tolerate being in the same room. It is still up to the host to decide, but no one can force you to stay at the venue.
Another example: you can tell a bookstore that you do not want them to display books by X next to yours, and if you are a self publisher yank yours from the store. Or use your own right of free speech to tell people they should buy your book elsewhere and not support the bookstore offending you.
Your right to free speech does not mean I have to be associated with you against my will. That in return is my right of free speech.
Nobody as big has, but people are doing it in other circles. India Arie has, although it’s as much for Rogan’s language around race as his Covid bullshit. Belly are trying and changed their spotify avatar to “Delete Spotify”, but they don’t have enough clout with their label. Zola Jesus would like to, but she needs the minimal income, and it’d be stupid to fault her for it.
I’m guessing there’ll be quite a few more higher profile artists in the future. It’s only been a week or so
That’s not what’s happening.
If you can’t say “I want nothing to do with this arsehole!” is it really free speech?
If you can’t walk away from that same arsehole, is it really freedom of association?
People are saying that and walking away, and that is an expression of freedom. I am joining them as an ex-subscriber, even though I have very little say about what happens at Spotify. This is a good reason why I kept all of those FLAC rips of my CDs.
Seems like you understand neither freedom of speech nor censorship. Go read the First Amendment again, specifically the beginning.
How is it possible that in 2022 people are still making this bone-headed argument after it has been soundly rebutted again, and again, and AGAIN. Especially when the person making it has been around this forum for five years. Amazing.
TIL free speech is literally getting to say or do whatever you want free of all criticism and consequences from anyone ever!
All those libel lawsuits are doomed I tell ya. No such thing!
Ordinarily, I would not associate Ars with “vicious,” but damn!
And Bob Dylan, and Paul Simon, and Bruce Springsteen and anyone else who sold there control of their own music to private equity.
I can’t imagine that they did not include in their contract a provision where they get to nix anything they see as objectionable.
