In the past decade, we have been provided with an empowered environment where marginalised voices can be heard and seek accountability when the justice system fails. While cancel culture does allow for accountability, some argue that the overzealous ideology is an un-productive form of online bullying to systematically exclude others with opposing views. Whilst this argument is two-fold, it is evolving to constrict free speech and limit open discussion.
Depending on the person you speak to, the definition of cancel culture can differ widely. To some, it is a contemporary form of rejection, involving the shutting down of different perspectives and “treating people as disposable”. (Alexander, E. 2020) While to others it is a way of expressing criticism and exerting social pressure. This definition is largely influenced by whether the individual believes that cancel culture does or does not threaten free speech.
Since the rise of social media, marginalised groups have been provided with a public voice and platform to share what it is like as a part of an ostracised community. This rise of public discussion has led to what some like to call ‘accountability’ or ‘call-out’ culture instead of cancel culture.
The #MeToo movement sparked cancel culture in 2014 as it sought responsibility from the people guilty of sexual harassment and assault. In this context, cancel culture “empowered the individual to reject structural social inequality.” (Loiselle, A. 2021)
The Harvey Weinstein case has proven that public attention from the #MeToo movement and subsequent cancel culture has a positive effect. Harvey Weinstein was charged with allegations of serious sexual assault and sentenced to 13 years in prison. In this instance, cancel culture was successful in responding to the law enforcement and the entertainment industry who did not take the accusations seriously. Abby Loiselle embraces “cancelling especially as a response to actions of sexual misconduct by those with power” and that this movement has made it “clear that inappropriate and dangerous behaviour (is) in violation of personal rights and that consequences would follow”. (Loiselle, A. 2021)
Amid the Black Lives Matter protests, food companies were also cancelled for having racially offensive brands. In January 2021, Saputo Dairy Australia announced that its cheese brand would change its name from Coon Cheese to Cheer Cheese in response to criticism about its name containing a racial slur. Cheer Cheese is just one of many food companies that have recently changed their brand names following recent public pressure.
Accountability culture, or cancel culture, “forces people to recognise that their words and actions have consequences.” (Delop, T. 2021) This is demonstrated in the cases of the #MeToo movement, Harvey Weinstein's conviction and multiple food companies such as the previously named ‘Coon Cheese’. In this context, cancel culture and its ideology was an effective way to hold public figures accountable by bringing accusations and injustices forward to the public eye. As Jared Schroeder and Jessica Maddox expressed, “Cancel culture is not a threat to free speech — it is a manifestation of it.” (Schroeder, J., Maddox, J. 2021)
Although cancel culture does allow for accountability in some cases, it has largely progressed into an obsessive ideology that silences opposing parties and open debate. Cancel culture’s claims of moral wrongfulness distracts from the larger, more pressing issue of the debate itself, often stifling free speech and discussion.
In February of 2022, Jefferey A. Lieberman, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, tweeted the phrase “freak of nature,” in a complimentary manner, concerning a black woman. In response to this poorly phrased and communicated tweet, Jeffrey resigned from his position as executive director of the NYC Psychiatric Institute and was suspended by his university. The consequences were extreme and took the attention away from more extensive issues - the systemic fetishisation of black women.
Cases like Lieberman's show how cancel culture’s oppressive ideology has created fear in the social media sphere to share opinions and discussions on political and cultural topics. The Cato Institute’s poll found that “62% of Americans say the current political climate prevents them from saying what they believe.” (Greven, A. 2020)
"People underestimate the potential negative effects of shaming as a dominant mechanism for change"
Tim Minchin on being nervous of discussing controversial topics publically
Lieberman’s case has provided us with a clear understanding of how cancel culture distracts the public from pressing issues and threatens free speech where individuals feel scared to contribute to public debate.
https://twitter.com/RoyaTheWriter/status/1310984012656238598?s=20&t=pUk8AoGqPzVLOVmH3kIO7A
Additionally, 150 writers, academics and activists signed Harper’s Magazine, ‘A Letter on Justice and Open Debate’. They all expressed concern that cancel culture is weakening “norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favour of ideological conformity” (N.a. 2020)
This letter (which ironically received a lot of backlash) has opened up a global discussion about cancel culture’s effect on free speech. In a less political environment, a controversial statement or declaration might ideally be treated as a contribution to an open and free debate, but in our current political climate, the same claim only creates accusations, oppressing a person’s free speech.
The term cancel culture has turned into a reactionary phenomenon that silences views and discussions that do not uphold the status quo. It is now crucial to establish a “culture of free speech, where discussion and debate is encouraged, and diversity of thought valued.” (Gora, J. 2021)
Social media has provided us with a landscape for marginalised voices to be heard and to hold others accountable for their wrongdoing. But the overzealous ideology of cancel culture has taken over, taking what was initially an empowering movement and morphing it into an obsessive ideology that silences the opposing party. Whilst the argument is two-fold, growth will not be made through the obsessive ideology that is cancel culture but rather through open debate and discussion. Only by using our right to free speech and “listening to others with differing opinions… can help us understand and develop more informed versions of our own opinions” (Breakey, H. 2020).
