Freedom of speech is the right to not be persecuted/sued/shut-down/jailed by the government. Emphasis on government. It's a free market place of ideas, you are allowed to say anything but you are also allowed to suffer the consequences of what you said and be confronted about it by other peers. It's not called "freedom of speech and receive unconditional support and applause". People are free to criticize Rogan, Spotify, their guests, your comment, my comment, etc. Any individual or company is allowed to decide on their contracts or thru whatever means on how to handle this situation that turn into public relation issues. No one is saying throw Rogan and all his guests in jail, they are just exercising their freedom of speech in saying "hey do we really want this partnership, and why?"

False. Neither freedom of speech nor censorship are tied to the concept of a government. They are much more fundamental and basic than that. Additionally large tech platforms control enough of societal discourse that they function as defector public squares. Censorship by tech companies is as effective as censorship by governments.

Here is the first amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Or to quote the Supreme Court of Canada:

> The protection of freedom of expression is premised upon fundamental principles and values that promote the search for and attainment of truth, participation in social and political decision-making and the opportunity for individual self-fulfillment through expression.

There is a legalistic sense of free expression/speech in various countries, yes. But it is also a philosophy and worldview that goes far beyond a legalistic sense. One that emphasizes toleration of dissent and competing views as a process to find truth, and one that recognizes the inherent importance of expression in human actualization and dignity. In that broader sense, the state/non-state distinction starts to fade away.

The concept of free speech is larger than the first amendment. They are not synonymous.

Free speech is not defined by the first amendment.

If they're trying to interfere in his contract with their employer it's tortuous interference Maybe they just need to have freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences and it will all work out.

> tortuous interference

I think you mean tortious interference. Or maybe you were right the first time.

Autocorrect