Kanye’s 'Heil Hitler' Song Has Everyone Talking — But For All the Wrong Reasons

Kanye West is back in the headlines with a track that’s as provocative as it is indefensible. Now the question is: who gets to decide what crosses the line?

Photo by Axel Antas-Bergkvist on Unsplash

Rapper Kanye West, also known as “Ye,” recently fed his addiction to attention and controversy after he released a song titled “Heil Hitler” last week.

West has been on an antisemitic kick over the past few years, and it has done wonders when it comes to keeping his name in the press. This time, the discussion wasn’t just about anti-Jewish bigotry, but about free speech.

The song features West complaining about not being able to see his children and how Jews are evil and blah blah blah. The song, part of his upcoming album Cuck, includes a music video with controversial imagery, such as Black men chanting "Heil Hitler" in animal skins, and ends with a Hitler speech clip.

It has drawn widespread criticism for its antisemitic themes and imagery. Several digital platforms have banned the song for obvious reasons. Spotify removed it in response to an Anti-Defamation League (ADL) petition. SoundCloud has removed the song several times after users continued uploading it. YouTube has done the same.

Conversely, other platforms such as X, Facebook, TikTok, and others have not taken the song down. In fact, the song has racked up millions of views on X — although most of these are probably people curious about the song, not folks who dig Nazis.

West has responded to the bans by vowing to perform the song at his upcoming shows. He stated that the song was comparable to Randy Newman’s “Rednecks,” which uses racial slurs to satirize racism. But no sane person actually believes this, given West’s constant derogatory remarks about Jewish people.

The furor over the song has ignited a debate about free speech on social media.

Folks on one side of the debate argue that streaming platforms are violating free speech because they have removed the song. On the other side, others point out that the concept of free speech isn’t about being shielded from consequences.

For starters, the content a company chooses to allow on its platform has little to do with freedom of expression. The First Amendment prohibits the government from using its power to stop us from expressing our views or punishing us for doing so. It does not apply to private entities.

Private companies can — and should — retain the right to refrain from associating with people or ideas that do not align with their values if they so choose. Companies like Spotify are not morally or legally obligated to promote a pro-Hitler song.

But the question is: Should these companies ban certain types of content?

Some might argue that while banning content does not violate the letter of the First Amendment, it violates the spirit of the First Amendment. But again, the spirit of that law is that the state should not prevent people from speaking their minds.

This does not mean we are obligated to associate with every utterance.

If someone visited you and your family and then cussed out your spouse and kids, you wouldn’t allow them to remain in your home out of some bizarre understanding of free speech, would you?

Of course you wouldn’t. That would defy all reason — and put you in the doghouse.

If these companies don’t want to associate with West’s song, then there is no reason to slam them for doing so. On the other hand, if a platform is fine with platforming the content, that’s fine too. I may not always agree with each content moderation decision — but I agree with their right to moderate content.

If I disagree with a moderation decision, I’ll attack the decision itself. I won’t pretend like the company is attacking free speech because they aren’t.

If Spotify bans West’s song, he can still perform it. He can still put the song on his own platform. He can still say whatever he wants without the government intervening.

To put it simply, his free speech is far from being violated. Perhaps we should save our arguments for those who actually want to use the government to silence people.