Ben Shapiro Notes Important Difference Regarding Candace Owens and 'Free Speech'

Candace Owens parted ways with The Daily Wire exactly one week ago. Neither side has publicized who initiated the departure or the precise reasons why.

That said, the overwhelming belief is the breakup stemmed from Owens' use of the slogan "Christ is King," which Daily Wire CEO Jeremy Boreing and others consider an anti-Semitic dog whistle. 

What's more, Owens engaged in several public spats with Daily Wire co-founder and co-owner Ben Shapiro prior to last week, primarily over their contrasting opinions regarding Israel and ongoing events across the Gaza Strip. 

You can view that timeline here.

Her departure has led to criticism from various conservative circles online questioning the Daily Wire's commitment to free speech, especially from critics who believe the company fired Owens over her commentary running afoul of Shapiro's beliefs as an orthodox Jew.

Finally, Shapiro addressed some of those accusations on the "Rubin Report" on Thursday. He declined to discuss specifics but added there were "a lot of other factors … at play" regarding Owens' departure.

He then made a compelling point about free speech, noting that the Daily Wire is a "publisher" that "would have no obligation" to pay someone whose views are not "inside what they would consider to be the Overton window."

The word "publisher" is often referenced in contrast to a "platform." 

Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram are "platforms," meaning almost anyone can post their opinions on their services.  "Platforms" are protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, benefiting from the argument that a site like Facebook is not legally responsible for what someone posts on it.

Meanwhile, the Daily Wire is a "publisher" that pays employees to voice their opinions. The Daily Wire is responsible for what employees post on its platform. 

"The Daily Wire would not have a host, would not pay a host, who was staunchly pro-abortion," Shapiro said, adding: "They would have no obligation to buy a host who is staunchly pro-abortion."

He is right. 

There's an obvious difference between a tech company not allowing someone to voice an opinion about abortion and a company not hiring someone to voice a specific opinion about abortion. 

For example, the Daily Wire is an openly conservative media company. The site discloses such information on its "About Us" page. Thus, it is reasonable for the company not to hire a liberal host. However, it would not be reasonable if Elon Musk banned a liberal from X, a "platform," simply for being liberal. And we would most certainly call Musk out on that if he did.

But about Ronna McDaniel and NBC???

NBC and MSNBC brand themselves as middle-of-the-round news organizations, not as political counterparts to the Daily Wire. That's the difference.

That brings us back to Candace Owens. She's not a liberal. In fact, her commentary on Israel is – accurately or not – characterized as "further right" than Shapiro's.

Still, as a "publisher," the Daily Wire is in its right to dismiss a host if her usage of "Christ is King" falls outside, as Shapiro put it, the "Overton window."

The far crummier decision would be holding a host captive and policing their opinions. Had we heard the Daily Wire censored Owens, the company would have deserved rather harsh criticism. 

From what we know, the Daily Wire never did that to Owens. Rather, the Daily Wire freed her out of her contract. 

"Free" is the word Owens used to confirm the news, suggesting she also wanted to leave. "The rumors are true— I am finally free," she posted on X.

While always amusing to declare a loser in the breakup, both sides seem better off than they were one week ago.