By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Kanye West’s song “Heil Hitler,” glorifying Hitler, has been widely circulated on X, despite removal from other platforms. Joe Rogan, while condemning West’s views, argued against censorship, suggesting the song’s popularity on X validates West’s claims of a concerted effort to silence him. Rogan’s perspective was that allowing free speech, even offensive content, has benefits, but also risks normalizing hateful rhetoric. He expressed concern about the song’s potential to embolden others and questioned the song’s ultimate consequences. This discussion follows previous criticisms of Rogan for platforming individuals who promote antisemitic and other extremist views.
Read the original article here
Joe Rogan’s assertion that banning Kanye West’s “kinda catchy” Hitler song somehow “kind of supports” his point is fundamentally flawed and misunderstands the very nature of free speech. He seems to imply that the removal of the song from platforms constitutes censorship, bolstering his own, unspecified argument. But this ignores a crucial distinction: the government isn’t involved in this removal, and therefore it isn’t censorship.
Private companies, like Spotify, have the absolute right to curate their content. They aren’t obligated to host or promote material they deem offensive, harmful, or detrimental to their brand. This decision isn’t an act of silencing; it’s an exercise of their own free market principles, the very same ones Rogan often champions. The idea that businesses must host everything, regardless of its content, is a misrepresentation of economic freedom.
The argument that removing Nazi propaganda equates to some grand Jewish conspiracy to silence Kanye West is absurd and deeply offensive. The reasons for rejecting such content are clear and simple: Nazism represents a genocidal ideology responsible for unimaginable atrocities. It’s not about silencing opinions; it’s about rejecting hate speech and harmful propaganda. There is no equivalence between expressing an opinion and promoting hate.
Rogan’s apparent belief that Kanye West “is allowed to sing that” misses the point. While the artist has freedom of expression, that freedom does not extend to forcing private entities to promote or distribute his work. The platforms are free to choose which content aligns with their values and business interests. The free market aspect of choosing what one does and does not publish is not something that should be ignored.
His claim that banning such content transforms the banners into fascists is a logical fallacy. Rejecting hate speech doesn’t equate to adopting the very ideology one is combating. The principle of tolerance does not extend to the intolerance of others, particularly those promoting violence, hatred and genocide. One can be tolerant of many viewpoints and intolerant of harmful, hateful ones, without contradiction. Tolerance does not mean endorsing hate speech; it means allowing a diversity of viewpoints to be expressed, as long as they do not incite harm.
The entire debate illustrates a profound misunderstanding of the concept of free speech in the United States and the freedom of private businesses to control their own platforms. The First Amendment protects against government censorship, not private entity decisions about what they will host. It is a fundamental difference that continues to be missed by many who are seemingly looking for the attention.
The broader political context reveals a deeper issue: a selective and often hypocritical application of “free speech” principles. While certain voices and viewpoints enjoy seemingly unlimited platforms, others face increasing restrictions. Those who support free speech for those who align with their viewpoints often work to silence those who hold different ideas. This points to a double standard and lack of actual understanding surrounding the value of open discussion.
The arguments against Kanye’s song are not about censorship, but about the responsibility of platforms to protect their users and avoid amplifying hate speech. They are not obligated to provide a platform to those who promote harmful ideologies. Therefore, the premise that banning the song “supports” Rogan’s argument is inherently weak. The actions of these platforms are not censorship, but an exercise of freedom from government overreach. They are also actions that are in line with the best interest of a healthy society.