Memo to podcasters: Free speech does not justify promoting antisemitism

Joe Rogan, America’s most popular podcaster, recently hosted Darryl Cooper, a Holocaust revisionist and pseudo-historian known for defending Nazi Germany. For almost three hours, Rogan gave Cooper a platform to defend Hitler, downplay the Holocaust and even joined Cooper in describing the current surge in antisemitism as mere Jewish “overreaction.”

This came just weeks after Rogan similarly let “independent researcher” Ian Carroll spew antisemitic diatribes about Jewish world domination. Comedian Theo Von, another massively popular podcaster, this month gave far-right activist Candace Owens a platform to spread antisemitic conspiracy theories about a worldwide Jewish pedophile ring.

With all this coming after Tucker Carlson openly defended Iran and Qatar — just months after hosting Cooper himself and Vladimir Putin — it is painfully clear that conservative media has declined since the days of William F. Buckley.

Contemporary media influencers gain attention by courting controversy. Figures like Carlson and Rogan build their brands by showcasing inflammatory figures who make dangerously absurd statements, justify atrocities or simply shill for hostile foreign governments. When criticized, these figures rarely take responsibility, instead claiming they are just “asking questions” or “engaging different views.” When challenged, they and their supporters cry “censorship” or “cancel culture” before digging in their heels.

However they see themselves, provocateurs like Rogan and Carlson aren’t free speech warriors. Their platforming of extremism is not morally neutral. The First Amendment guarantees protection from government censorship, but it doesn’t absolve individuals from using their platforms responsibly — and it certainly does not compel the public to listen.

It’s not censorship for private citizens to guard and govern public discourse — it’s responsible citizenship. When podcasters invoke free speech rights to justify platforming vicious thoughts, they trade on the social contract of self-governance that keeps that right safe from government intervention. But individuals have a responsibility to oppose harmful ideas and to call for their removal from public discourse.

It is laughable to argue that “just asking questions” or “having discussions” about harmful ideas has no impact on their prevalence. Parents of toddlers knows that entertaining an idea invites its recurrence. To engage in “discussions” with a toddler who demands that his or her dinner consist only of Oreos would signal the possibility of a future Oreo dinner. In the same way, “asking questions” that amplify extreme and vicious ideas merely normalizes extremism and false information in society.

Research demonstrates that repeated exposure to false or extreme claims, even those framed as mere speculation, makes people perceive those claims as more plausible or true. Thus, by uncritically presenting inflammatory views, figures like Rogan, Carlson and Von are not simply “having conversations” — they are reinforcing and legitimizing harmful ideas, especially when they describe these ideas as “nuanced” or “comprehensive,” as Rogan did to Cooper. This shifts the “Overton window” toward making antisemitism, and other forms of extremism, mainstream.

Podcasting is a newer medium, but normalizing extremism under the guise of “just asking questions” is an old trick. Indeed, George Lincoln Rockwell, founder of the American Nazi Party, employed it over six decades ago. He said, “If you are denied some of the facts or if the facts are twisted or misrepresented then you cannot possibly guide the ship of state.” The “facts” Rockwell referred to were the same antisemitic libels featured on Rogan’s and Von’s shows — to say nothing of Rockwell’s equally repugnant beliefs about other minorities. Just as a responsible parent should not entertain their toddlers’ unhealthy dietary preferences, a responsible citizen should not entertain the normalization of hateful extremism.

This isn’t to say that good-faith discussions about controversial topics cannot occur. There are countless examples of difficult and even painful discussions exploring different sides of an issue, even ones as fraught as antisemitism.

However, there’s a distinction between genuine discourse and uncritically platforming extremism. Rogan, Von and their crowd have done the latter. Simply nodding along, as Rogan and Von did while their guests made claims about secret Jewish control of America is not a “conversation,” and it most certainly is not “asking questions.” It is a passive endorsement of Jew hatred.

Furthermore, platforming these claims has real-world consequences. Owens and her antisemitic conspiracies — the same ones she advanced on Von’s podcast — were explicitly referenced by a school shooter in Nashville, who said Owens motivated him “above all” in his pursuit of “violence and extremism.” If thought leaders wish to claim they are simply “having conversations,” then they must either call out extremism or refuse to platform it.

However, media figures aren’t solely responsible for which ideas take root in society. Influence and popularity — and thus social power — is granted by those who choose to listen. This means that even if we can’t stop Rogan from giving Cooper three hours to spew Holocaust denial to an audience of millions, we can choose not to join that audience, not even by “hate-watching” or “hate-listening.”

As the adage goes, there’s no such thing as bad publicity. Such figures as Rogan, Von and Owens know how to turn outrage into influence, just as George Lincoln Rockwell did decades ago. Attention, even negative attention, grows their influence. Thus, listeners are ultimately responsible for the spread of extremism and lies.

Free speech is a right that implies responsibility. The First Amendment protects against government censorship, but it doesn’t compel anyone to platform extremism, nor does it absolve audiences of examining the consequences of their consumption. Viewers and listeners must hold media figures accountable for what they platform.

Refusing to engage with hateful, extremist nonsense isn’t censorship. It is the bare minimum for responsible citizenship, and no amount of crying “cancel culture” can change that.

Dr. Aaron Pomerantz is a social psychologist and research fellow at Rice University’s Doerr Institute for New Leaders and a Middle East Peace fellow with Young Voices.