Where did I say that? I can personally object to something without invoking the government to action.

So if the government can force spotify to publish all opinions, why should they not be able to force you to do the same on your blog?

In the status quo private people and companies are allowed to not accept contributions on their websites. This is not censorship, this is their right as runners of a plattform. Joe rogan can always go and create his own if he finds that no one wants to publish him.

I don't see how enabling the government to force people to publish speech they don't want to say isn't 100% worse than what we have now. It reminds me of stories from the soviet union.

If the government has tried to "force" Spotify to take down or produce content, then the government is in the wrong and Spotify is spineless for not fighting back. We have the Constitution for a reason in the U.S. The government would not have a leg to stand on.

But that's not what happened. Spotify is taking down content for financial reasons. They don't like the heat they are getting from the press, musicians, and yes maybe perhaps the government. And companies have always made editorial decisions for financial reasons.

You misread my comment, I am not of the opinion that this is actually the case.

So let the shareholders decide what’s best for Spotify.

Ya sure. But there are literally decision makers who frequent this forum, so if I object to something for sound reasons it’s worth saying so.

They already do that. Try telling a black man he can't come into your store. Try posting a job add that says "White Anglo Saxon Protestant Men only".

Indeed. And this happened after a very specific carve-out to understood freedom of association law via the Civil Rights Act. And with good reason! But it was controversial then and in some circles it still is. The CRA curtailed the freedoms of many to give greater freedom to all in the form of equal treatment regardless of [insert full list of inherent traits here], not just under the law, but in business also. Prior to it, all the discriminations you listed were legal.

If you think we should further carve into people's freedoms to associate (or, in this case, freedom of the press to publish or refrain from publishing Rogan) in the interests of broader freedom, what should that law look like and on what underlying philosophy should it be based?

You're allowed to say anything you want, but you are not allowed to discriminate based on race, and if such signs in the window would cause a reasonable person to think you are discriminating based on race, then yes they must be taken down.

There are obviously limits to free speech and there always have been. Can I perjure myself in front of a jury? Can I yell "fire" in a crowded theater? Each of these actions would have a consequence, and it is the act of knowingly provoking that consequence that is prohibited, not the act of speech itself.

If there's a fire, or you think there's a fire, I'd say you have a moral obligation to yell "fire in a crowded theater".

It's probably the worst example as this was the metaphor was by the government when people were passing out anti war flyers opposing the draft during WWI. These same people were tried and convicted under the espionage and sedition acts. The judges unanimously sided with the government.

If I think there's a fire, or a problem, damn straight I'm going to speak up, and this definitely feels like Spotify is taking down things "the public", no court even required how great, find distasteful in the moment.

It seems to me that lot of 'loosing free speech' is about loosing racist privileges.