I'm worried they think they have the god given right to bend any organization to their view of what's right. Its not about the money or how big the company is, its about the consumers. I like Dave Chapelle. I even like plenty of old school comedians who have made racist jokes about my race. I like having lots of good content in one place so i dont need to sign up on 100 different video streaming platforms all representing ONLY content that features 0 wrong think according to the views of whoever works there.

I dont think you understand what censorship means if you believe that its somehow not censorship when a big company does it to a famous person. Yes, it is censorship. That's what the word means.

They clearly don't think they have a god given right, they have leverage.In the same way Chappelle uses his celebrity to spread hatred, they're using their leverage to disassociate with him.

I actually do understand what censorship means. Which is why it's so hilarious to hear people insist that Netflix chosing to not contract with Dave Chappelle is censorship. By your definition of censorship almost everyone is being censored.

From Wikipedia - Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. *This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient"*

The 2nd sentence is the important bit. A lot of people provably want to watch Chapelle as evidenced by his popularity and sales, but the employees demand the show be taken down despite that. You are implying that i believe any selection process at all is censorship which again seems disingenuous or misunderstands what the word is commonly understood to mean.

The protestors aren't suppressing Chappelle's ability to perform comedy or to speak, they're objecting to Netflix chosing to distribute the comedy through its private, subscription only network.

If you subscribe to the idea that Chappelle has the right to be paid by netflix, then so do I. Where's my money?

So what other means does anyone have to distribute speech that isn't commercial?

If you're OK with with protestors at Netflix doing it, then surely its OK for protestors at Youtube, Apple, a TV network or a comedy club to do the same. They can do it at a newspaper, a podcast, a radio station. Everything in a capitalist society is run for profit by some commercial entity. So what's the difference between whatever you call censorship and this? Suppressing distribution IS censorship.

And obviously I didn't say everyone has the right to be paid by Netflix. This is again just arguing in bad faith or woefully ignorant of how the world works. No, Netflix has the right to pay whomever they choose, which as a for-profit corporation, they will generally do based on how much of an audience you can pull to their platform. They pay Chapelle because he's funny and people like watching him.. not because he has "the right" to be paid. They pay him in exchange for something that Chapelle produces, not as a free handout. If you can convince a million people to pay to watch you get on a soapbox and cry about transphobia, then perhaps Netflix would sign a deal with you and pay you as well.

I'm confused. Isn't that the intent of the protest? Those walking out specifically want to silence Chappelle. At the end of the day, I don't care what happens between a multi-millionaire and a multi-billion dollar corporation but your question seems disingenuous at best.

They aren't protesting that Chappelle is performing comedy, they're protesting that their company is financing it and advertising it. That's a massive difference.

Stopping shouting != silence.

This is a naive take. Should every minority opinion be given the front page of netflix, regardless of the harm pushing it might leave in it's wake? Or just TERFs?

Anti-trans violence and suicidality is a major issue and speech around it needs to be cognizant of that. At best in his special Chappelle does a poor job of recognizing this be it because he is maligned, uninformed, or just unclear; Advocating that we should continue amplifying it's message as some insular censorship issue is utterly silly.

> Is it really censorship to ask one of the most valuable companies in the world not to give enormous sums of money to one of the richest comedians in the world specifically for content that is transphobic?

That's not what happened, but ok. You believe what you like.

Just out of curiosity, have you actually watched the special in question?

Do you often give opinions about things that you have no first hand experience with?

Yes, it would be censorship. Doing comedy specials is his career. Just because he's successful doesn't change the basic facts.