I came across a rather intense social media debate recently on the question of Joe Rogan and free speech. Interestingly, the participants in the debate had no differences whatever over the lack of scientific validity in what Rogan has been saying about the present COVID-19 pandemic.All agreed with the 'over 270 scientists, doctors, nurses' who have signed a petition complaining that Rogan has used his Spotify podcast to 'repeatedly spread misleading and false claims' that generate 'distrust in science and medicine.'The disagreement came over whether any effort to limit the expression of his reprehensible views was justified. The petition issued by the medical professionals calls for Rogan to be restrained and urges Spotify 'to immediately establish a clear and public policy to moderate misinformation on its platform.' Similarly, a series of recording artists, including Neil Young and Joni Mitchell, have put pressure on Spotify by denying the company access to their music.One side in this social media exchange, argued that, while Rogan's COVID disinformation may be regrettable, any effort to curtail his promotion of such views represented an authoritarian slippery slope and an assault on freedom of expression. It was the classic defence of the right to say deplorable things that some civil libertarians feel compelled to take up.Now, there are some very valid and important debates to be had about boundaries of free speech that most commonly arise when it comes to controlling the expression and incitement of hatred. However, the Rogan situation raises a rather different set of issues, in my view. In the case of our infamous podcaster, the key question is not whether he should be allowed to advance his views but it is rather the enormous size of his platform that has to be addressed. Spotify, after all, is a vast operation with resources behind it that provide a truly massive amplification for this man's harmful message. Rogan and other such 'opinion shapers,' have the distinct advantage of the best free speech money can buy.Free speechIn his defining work 'Freedom and Capitalism,' Milton Friedman argues that the corporate media is the very bedrock of freedom of expression. To Friedman, only a privately owned news source can ensure that independent and critical voices are raised. The fact that this means that the ownership of influential media sources will be limited to very rich people is perfectly fine as far as he is concerned. Friedman's selective reasoning starkly reveals something very important about how his beloved capitalist system works. Though repressive means are hardly unknown, things run most smoothly when a formal freedom can be trumpeted, while the capacity to exercise it is very strictly rationed according the economic means and social class.Back in the 1980s, when I was an active member of a union of unemployed workers in London, Ontario, we got a call one day from the local cable TV station. They informed us that they had several half hour spots for community groups to use that were generally under utilized and they wanted to know if we would be interested in taking advantage of this. After discussing the offer, we agreed to put together five sessions that would show the work we were doing and put forward some of the ideas and principles that motivated us. After this 'dry run,' both sides would consider if a regular weekly show was in order.The first session we produced consisted of a discussion of the history and oppressive role of the welfare system that so many were being forced to turn to at that time. The following one featured a hard hitting interview with two representatives of a single mothers' organization that explored the societal injustices they were challenging. We put forward a clearly radical and uncompromising message in both sessions and had similar plans for the following weeks.At this point, however, the TV station called and told us they had to cancel the remaining three portions of our test run. At first, we assumed that we might not have generated sufficient interest in the community but the person from the station freely admitted that our broadcasts were getting an unprecedented response. A considerable number of calls were coming in and, while this included negative responses, supportive feedback was the main reaction by far. The problem, however, was that the businesses who sponsored the community shows had made it abundantly clear that they would withdraw funding if we weren't cancelled.No doubt Milton Friedman would have pointed out that our freedom of expression was not being taken from us but that corporate sponsors had simply exercised their right to decide what they did and didn't want to support. In one sense, he'd be quite correct. After we were denied access to the airwaves, we could still print up leaflets and stand on street corners presenting our point of view to passers by. The business interests that funded the local TV station, however, could ensure that any messages broadcast to a large local audience would be to their liking and conform to their interests.This brings us back to our starting point and the free speech rights of Joe Rogan. I say those rights should be fully upheld and that he be allowed  to stand at a freezing cold intersection, right next to the person with the 'End is Nigh' sign, and shout himself hoarse. What does need to be taken from him, however, is the ill deserved ability to massively amplify his false and harmful message, based on the preferences of unaccountable monied interests.John Clarke was an organizer with the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty for twenty eight years. He presently holds the position of Packer Visitor in Social Justice at York University.