Does Cancel Culture threaten free speech?

Cancel culture threatens freedom of speech as it acts as a form of censorship and hinders individuals from expressing themselves as they fear punishment. Cancel culture has become an intrinsic element of contemporary society in its ability to ostracise someone in professional or social circles by threatening their freedom of speech. Jonah Bromwich from the New York Times described this newfound digital phenomenon as "a total disinvestment in something (anything)" (2018, npa). Cancel culture is commonly associated with digital and social media activism (Clark, 2020), as it acts as a tool for communities to advocate their values against public figures (Romano, 2021). The core concern of cancel culture derives from accountability, pushing public figures to acknowledge their actions and make a change (Romano, 2021).

Freedom of speech relates to "the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas", even those perceived as genuinely offensive. The idea of freedom of speech is contradicted as it can be heavily restricted to respect and protect the well-being of others. Freedom of speech has always had consequences, as there is no general consensus on moral behaviour (Mueller, 2021), as everyone has their own opinions of right and wrong. Cancel culture does not violate the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech. The First Amendment only protects against the government punishing those who engage in free speech but does not apply to how civilians respond to free speech.

One of the most extreme examples of cancel culture can be seen in the case of Harvey Weinstein. Weinstein was a former movie producer and now a convicted sex offender and was sentenced to 13 years in prison for rape and sexual assault. In the case of Weinstein, cancel culture stepped in when law enforcement and the entertainment industry had taken the accusations seriously due to Weinstein's platform (Gordon, 2021). These accusations were coming forth for decades, and it took the public to cancel Harvey Weinstein for justice to intervene. In this instance, cancel culture forced those in power to take the initiative and fire Weinstein from his film company and face the consequences of his actions. Cancel culture can take power away from those that have committed atrocious crimes bringing justice where needed, but what of those who merely exert their freedom of speech on their platforms?

Is it a social justice tool or a new form of censorship?

Cancel culture is incredibly powerful, but its threat to freedom of speech makes it controversial, challenging if it is a social justice tool or a new form of merciless mob intimidation and censorship. Freedom of speech is a privilege and allows those with and without power to speak their truth. However, those making the most of freedom of speech can lose their platforms and damage their careers. This was demonstrated in the case of J.K. Rowling, who is recognised for her hit book series Harry Potter. Rowling experienced heavy backlash when she voiced her opinions on Twitter regarding her belief that transgender rights are threatening women's rights. The topic of cancel culture becomes confusing when the individual did not physically harm, as in Weinstein's case, but when there is a controversial difference in beliefs. Rowling expressed her right as an individual to speak her mind freely about the LGBTQ+ community, but it was not well received by the public. Many attempted to cancel Rowling and called for a boycott of her books when she voiced her opinion on a public platform.

Rowling's experience with cancel culture demonstrates how individuals' freedom of speech to express their subjective thoughts and opinions can be publicly declared acceptable or harmful. Rowling embodies the issue of cancel culture's threat to freedom of speech as it discourages individuals from speaking their minds due to fear of being the next target of cancel culture. Rowling, as a result, lost much support from her fans and opportunities within her professional life.

The contrasting argument is that instead of costing someone their careers by attempting to cancel someone due to differences in opinions and beliefs, people should learn to listen and engage in developing new perspectives on issues. Cancel culture can bring positive change; however, the hate and toxicity it inflicts on individuals can leave little room for the person to make amends, learn from their mistakes and grow. Cancel culture is recognised as a form of shaming, and shaming rarely helps an individual learn and make positive changes. The shaming Rowling endured only fuelled her more, and she teamed with many academics and authors to write a public letter to defend the free exchange of ideas and beliefs. Whilst shaming has pushed others to regain platforms through public apologies and claims of 'personal growth'. This was seen with Nick Cannon when he chose to make anti-semitic comments on his podcast, which resulted in him being fired from ViacomCBS. Cannon refused to let these comments ruin his career, and he issued a public apology acknowledging his mistake, visited the Holocaust Museum and donated money to a Jewish organisation.

Cancel culture threatens freedom of speech, which forces us as an audience to decide whether it deserves consequences or not (Berkley, 2020). The shaming associated with cancel culture shuts down different perspectives and can treat people as disposable. Cancel culture has become a harsh social justice tool, with people stripped of their platforms for expressing their freedom of speech instead of merely being "called out", which generally inflicts feelings of guilt instead of shame. Guilt is more likely to allow a person to learn and grow, such as Jamil Jameel, who states, "Not being cancelled has enabled me to be accountable, learn from my mistakes, and go on to share those lessons with others and do good with my privilege. Most of us have the potential to do that." As a society, when we utilise cancel culture, we silence those who use freedom of speech and remove their platform, but this is only acceptable if the individual causes irreparable harm. The focus needs to shift to condemning people when their language harms others and pushing for a change instead of immediately choosing to end careers and stripping all power.

References

Alexander, E., 2020. Cancel culture: a force for good or a threat to free speech?. [online] Harper's BAZAAR. Available at: <https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/a33296561/cancel-culture-a-force-for-good-or-a-threat-to-free-speech/> [Accessed 30 March 2022].

Amnesty International UK. 2020. What is free speech?. [online] Available at: <https://www.amnesty.org.uk/free-speech-freedom-expression-human-right> [Accessed 27 March 2022].

Breakey, H., 2020. Is cancelling culture silencing open debate? There are risks to shutting down opinions we disagree with. [online] The Conversation. Available at: <https://theconversation.com/is-cancel-culture-silencing-open-debate-there-are-risks-to-shutting-down-opinions-we-disagree-with-142377> [Accessed 26 March 2022].

D. Clark, M., 2020. DRAG THEM: A brief etymology of so-called “cancel culture”. Communication and the Public, 5(3-4), pp.88-92.

En.wikipedia.org. 2022. Cancel culture - Wikipedia. [online] Available at: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture> [Accessed 31 March 2022].

Gordon, D., 2021. Good things have come from 'cancel culture' when not taken too far. [online] Tahlequah Daily Press. Available at: <https://www.tahlequahdailypress.com/opinion/columns/column-point-counterpoint-good-things-have-come-from-cancel-culture-when-not-taken-too-far/article_36a9e220-e256-58dd-9c3c-b74dcbbd5af4.html> [Accessed 30 March 2022].

Graham, J., 2022. Cancel culture is entering a dangerous new phase. But there is a key to getting out. [online] Deseret News. Available at: <https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2020/8/22/21362516/cancel-culture-forgiveness-j-k-rowling-carson-king-apology-moral> [Accessed 1 April 2022].

Harper's BAZAAR. 2020. Jameela Jamil says stars are "scared" to speak out over Black Lives Matter. [online] Available at: <https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/celebrities/news/a33007876/jameela-jamil-stars-are-scared-to-speak-out-over-black-lives-matter/> [Accessed 31 March 2022].

Harper’s Magazine. 2020. A Letter on Justice and Open Debate. [online] Available at: <https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/> [Accessed 31 March 2022].

Matei, A., 2019. Call-out culture: how to get it right (and wrong). [online] The Guardian. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/nov/01/call-out-culture-obama-social-media> [Accessed 30 March 2022].

​​Mueller, TS 2021, ‘Blame, then shame? Psychological predictors in cancel culture behaviour’, The Social science journal (Fort Collins), pp. 1–14. [Accessed 29 March 2022]

Reference: https://www.amnesty.org.uk/free-speech-freedom-expression-human-right

Robison-Greene, R., 2020. Under Discussion: Free Speech, Cancel Culture, and Compassion. The Prindle Post. [Accessed 26 March]

Romano, A., 2020. Why we can’t stop fighting about cancel culture. [online] The Vox. Available at: <https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/12/30/20879720/what-is-cancel-culture-explained-history-debate> [Accessed 26 March 2022].

Romano, A., 2021. What does "cancel culture" even mean in 2021?. [online] Vox. Available at: <https://www.vox.com/22384308/cancel-culture-free-speech-accountability-debate> [Accessed 29 March 2022].

The White House. n.d. The Constitution. [online] Available at: <https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/#:~:text=The%20First%20Amendment%20provides%20that,for%20a%20redress%20of%20grievances.> [Accessed 27 March 2022].