From daytime television provocateurs like Piers Morgan to fallen icons such as J.K. Rowling, "cancel culture" is a burning issue at the moment. Rowling affirms that she should be able to have an opinion on trans people without losing her reputation; Morgan is constantly poking at the sensibilities of trans people in a society that is hostile to them more often than not (my eyes glaze over as I am transported back to weeks of “two-spirit penguin” arguments).
Even outside of the dark realm of transphobia, many celebrities express concern about cancel culture threatening freedom of speech. Jokes made to provoke or attack groups of people, the resurfacing of jokes or opinions that have long passed their sell-by date, and influential people yelling slurs when they lose their composure are also in the firing line. It seems that cancel culture ruins reputations, destroys careers, and encourages us to pour validation into superficial moral outrage. But… what is it really?
"Cancelling", a term coined by the Black community on Twitter, is the act of online boycott. A classic example of cancelling is the withdrawal of online support from celebrities who have used their fame, wealth, and influence to abuse people (think Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, and Kevin Spacey). It is mainly a performative act that spreads awareness about what people have done and dissuades people from supporting them. This was an effective tactic of the #MeToo movement that not only saw celebrities face the consequences of their behaviour, but also turned the spotlight onto workplace and street harassment, working to make women feel comfortable at work and at home.
I will admit that cancel culture can go too far. Anyone below the age of 28 should remember when Tati Westbrook called out James Charles on YouTube when she found out he had a sponsorship with a hair vitamin business which wasn't her own. James Charles has undeniably said and done some sketchy things in the past, but has since apologised and moved on. Nonetheless, Westbrook's public shaming of James Charles lost him 5 million subscribers (which did eventually return with a vengeance), demonstrating that not everybody uses cancelling with the intention of seeking justice and holding powerful people accountable.
As well as this, the anonymity and the lack of regulation on the internet often hijacks this act and can have serious consequences. Some people have lost their jobs because of poorly placed or deliberately misunderstood jokes (this has happened to both left-wing and right-wing people), and others have been doxxed, having their personal details such as their workplace and residential address leaked. This is clearly unacceptable.
But does that mean that withdrawing your support and expressing a loss of respect for a celebrity is a threat to freedom of speech? No.
Before you aggressively cite Christopher Hitchens or Jordan Peterson at me, let's remember that freedom of speech has never come without boundaries or rules. You could never shout a derogatory slur at someone, you cannot incite or threaten people with violence, you cannot call emergency services when there is no emergency and you cannot shout fire in a place where there is no fire. You never have been able to do that, but I don't hear much about these restrictions to freedom of speech, apart from the odd contrarian. So why do we get so worked up about famous people losing their platform when they say controversial things in front of an audience of thousands, if not millions of people?
There's the emotional impulse to defend the people you admire, which is understandable to an extent. But I would like to emphasise that freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequences, and celebrities have spent decades resting on their laurels when it comes to the lack of accountability they had previously enjoyed. Social media has made it clear that freedom of speech works both ways: you can espouse your indefensible views all you like, but the 500,000 people who just read your tweet can respond, they can unfollow you, and they can criticise you. That is also freedom of speech.
A phrase that often gets thrown around by American free speech diehards like Ben Shapiro is that "I can swing my fist around all I want, as long as I don't punch you in the face", meaning I can say anything I like as long as I'm not inciting violence. I agree that freedom of speech allows you to "swing your fist" (and this isn't always just to be a bigot), but I am allowed to use my freedom of speech to walk away or to say something like "stop doing that."
We are living in a time where the media is more democratic than it was before and the audience can bite back. This can be to the benefit or the detriment of entertainment and our enjoyment of it, but it is not bringing freedom of speech to a halt. If you still believe that cancelling someone is a genuine threat to freedom of speech, I have one more question: are you worried that billionaires are losing their freedom, or are you worried that their audiences are using theirs?
By Elizabeth Sorrell
Image courtesy of Tingey Injury Law Firm via Unsplash