Peniel E. Joseph is yet another far-left activist taking a run at Joe Rogan:
This is the key line from Joseph's latest CNN Propaganda: "Conservatives who are defending Rogan with cries of free speech are being disingenuous."
Whoa. Stop right there. For the 5th time, the Joe Rogan fight is ALL ABOUT free speech. Let me break it down to the most basic level for you and take away all the names involved.
Let's pretend that I'm a genius. (I'm obviously not, but work with me here.) I develop a streaming radio app that is easy to load and has every single talk radio host from Bangor, Maine to Walla Walla, Washington is on it and I name it Klat (Talk backwards.) Big town, small town, it doesn't matter, with over 10,000 shows contained within, big talkers in New York and Los Angeles drive the content model, but my app doesn't house many original Klat produced shows.
The personalities on Klat don't make their living on the app, which only pays a fraction of a penny for streams, they make their living off of their contracts in their local markets. Klat makes their money as being the biggest player in the talk format which drives advertising dollars.
Within 5 or 10 years, some right winger, let's name him Mr. X., rises to the top of Klat ratings and, all of a sudden, the left is verklempt. Mr. X is vilified as a hatemonger. As the president of Klat, I don't give a rat's ass about which way my app leans, I have 10,000 different slices of the political spectrum within my listed materials. In theory, the market drives who is popular and who's not.
But over the last generation, the left has overrun platforms and labeled popular options on the right as hate speech. They've done it in the local marketplace, they've done it on Cable, they've done it on YouTube, they've done it on Facebook, and now they're doing it on Spotify.
Peniel E. Joseph is just another tool of the left who insults Middle-American Rubes who aren't as "smart" as him. Joseph warns of the evils hate speech, but what is hate speech?
Let's use the late Rush Limbaugh as our free speech example, he's dead and less likely to sue us. Back in the 1990's Rush Limbaugh said that marriage was a sacred commitment between a man and a woman. He clearly stated that if you let gays get married, it was right down the slippery slope. If you allowed gay marriage, then there would be throuples, then four-way marriages, then sex doll marriages, then adult-child marriages, then people marrying rocks and so on.
Now whether you agree with Limbaugh or not, he didn't call for anyone to be killed, jailed, or deported for their sexual orientation, he simply said that marriage fit a specific definition and he was well within his free speech rights to say as much. Leftist propagandists labeled his speech as hate speech because they knew Limbaugh violated no law or crossed any lines, all they could do is shriek at him that love was love no matter what form. It was the first time that I recall the left saying speech that disagreed with theirs was hate speech.
Rush Limbaugh was not universally derided for his gay marriage take. A generation ago, about half of America agreed with him and about half of America swore at his lack of enlightenment. Last year a record high 70% of Americans supported gay marriage. Rush Limbaugh never ran for political office, as he was nothing more than an entertainer. Your argument is that Rush Limbaugh brainwashed half of America? Very, very doubtful. Rush Limbaugh connected to the half of the nation that already thought the way that he did.
Now back to our fictional Mr. X in our Klat example. He is popular because he tells it how it is and he connects with the working man. The left envies X's popularity and aren't able to defeat him in the arena of ideas. All they can do is their classic 2-step:
Label his speech Hate Speech.
Ask for him to be removed from the platform.
Now here's the important part: Where is the line? If the platform leans left, with a politically active CEO, it is more likely ban content because it is about promoting ideas that match their own. If it's only about money, platforms are more likely to defend most speech (Zuckerberg.)
But the concept should be about defending free speech, period. Peniel E. Joseph is simply another pawn in the culture wars. As a journalist, he should be about promoting the concept of defending speech, instead Joseph is paid by CNN to play the Race Card. For that narrative, he is compensated quite handsomely and, ultimately, that's what he's about.
In Joseph's defense, if you paid me 6 figures a year to only play the Race Card, over and over, I would probably take that job....
....well, if I didn't have a conscience.
One of Peniel E. Joseph's favorite artists is Ice Cube. Last year Joseph took Ice Cube to task for whom he associated with. Not his art, mind you, but the contacts in his personal life.
I am going to break it down to the lowest common denominator so even Peniel E. Joseph can understand. Some people like Ice Cube and some people are offended by Ice Cube.
Some people like GWAR and some people are offended by GWAR.
If you read the lyrics to both of the songs highlighted above, you could easily figure out why some portions of America would find either song offensive. These 2 songs are an allegory for what's happening today in the free speech battle across platforms.
A prude would want both songs banned.
A partisan hack would want one song banned, but not the other.
A free speech advocate would defend both songs.
It is really that simple.
Comments