back
3 comments
Yeah, full protection from repercussions by the american government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_...

Unless of course he's violating any (or lots of) the exceptions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

As spotify is not the american government it doesn't really apply here.

In addition even if they were the american government, that would only apply in america, which is in fact, not the entire world.

Spotify isn’t the government. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that anyone has to amplify that speech and broadcast it.

EDIT: Replying to child comments: The First Amendment only applies to the government; full stop. If a bakery can refuse service to a gay couple, and a restaurant can remove you for not following dress code, any private business can refuse you service. Period. You have freedom of speech and they have freedom of association. Those are both First Amendment rights. The right to refuse business is right there next to the right to spout off at the mouth.

Does that standard also apply to services like, for example, GitHub? Do you think that we shouldn't ever question if Microsoft would start kicking off open source projects for arbitrary reasons?
Is Github owned and operated by a state or federal government agency? No? Then yes it probably applies. No person or business has to serve you, or buy from you, or employ you, or let you share their platform. It's their resources and therefor their choice to do so. If it were otherwise people might have recourse when Google shuts them out unilaterally, or when Paypal closes account for vague ToS violations.

Those freedoms enabled the best and worst behavior and let people make of it as they will. Laws usually concern themselves with the ways people abuse others: fraud, various kinds of violence, theft, breach of contract, etc. Regulations exist for industries where the risk of damage to many people exists: chemical waste disposal, lending laws, food labeling laws. If the industry needs regulation then that's what we should push for. My interpretation has always been that the constitution establishes what basic expectations of freedoms and restrictions we should have, and laws set the boundaries on where my freedom ends and yours begins.

A bakery is not a means of mass communication.
If a tree falls in the woods, but none of the services people spend their time on carry the Forest Channel, does it make a sound?
He can say whatever he wants without persecution from the government, but it doesn't mean we all have to give him the platform to be an asshole.
It also doesn't mean that we all have to refuse him the platform to be an asshole.

Giving him the platform seems like exactly what Spotify wants to do, and since we all reached the consensus that private corporations are free to do whatever they want with their platforms, I don't understand what the issue is.

Either that or we could just stop being dishonest and admit that we just want to censor people we don't agree with.

Spotify can do what it wishes, and grandparent poster has said s/he disagrees with Spotify and doesn't wish to contribute to their profits while they're doing something s/he disagrees with. So, isn't that all good and dandy?

And if people start a campaign to tell people to "Delete Spotify", that seems to be in the realm of acceptability too? Just like people are saying "Delete Uber" because they're taking money from that Saudi "Journalist Chopper" Prince.

If the campaign is to get the government to create a law to muzzle Spotify, then there is an issue...