Zheng 1

Angelica Zheng

Andreea Corona

Linguistics 3B

12/03/2021

Cancel Culture is a Threat to Free Speech

An increasingly popular new concept gained substantial traction on social media in the

preceding year: the concept of "canceling culture," which is gaining universal acceptance.

Celebrities, influencers, content creators, and even corporations have withdrawn their support in

response to behavior generally seen as insulting or unethical. This is referred to as "celebrity

sponsorship withdrawal". Cancel culture, also known as the call-out culture online, is one of

these unhealthy tendencies. As defined by Emma, 'canceling' toxic members of society is a

collective action in which we bar, ignore and discredit the work of those we can no longer

accept." Cancel culture does not occur only in the present; it has a more well-known explanation

called "blocking." However, the "blocking" in authoritarian countries is often the behavior of

public power on individuals or platforms. Because of the emergence of "cancel culture", there

also rise of a debate that whether cancels culture is a threat or a promotion to free speech. As far

as I’m concerned, the rise of "cancel culture" would menace people’s pursuit for free speech in

the following two aspect.

To begin with, in a way, canceling a common person without regard for the nuances of

that individual's existence constitutes network violence in the form of bullying or

disproportionate punishment. The vast majority of call-outs, for example, immediately designate

someone who is suspected of doing anything wrong as an outsider in the community, regardless
 Zheng 2

of whether or not they are guilty. There appears to be no distinction between a member of the

general public or acquaintance and a random stranger strolling down the street (who is also

somebody's pal), and a single deed becomes the basis for pronouncing judgment on an

individual's whole character. Call-out culture may become a reflection of what the criminal

industrial complex teaches people about punishment and crime: that people should be expelled

and disposed of rather than engaged as individuals with rich stories and histories. Atop that, a

simple plea for assistance generally grows into a mob assault on a single individual. It is claimed

that those calling other people out take the moral high ground, which is accompanied by a

tremendous lot of good wrath, and encourage other people to partake in an exercise in public

humiliation. Therefore, people who have their applications rejected feel as if they are on shaky

ground and drawing from an empty glass if they had any mistake noted would be like drawing

from a hole in the ground. Other than that, according to Matei (13), "the cancel culture always

leads to over punishment and unjustified online violence." The cancel culture deteriorates the

tolerance of people online towards those who express different views of them.

In fact, the canceling culture does not want to block someone but plays a vigilant role at

the begining. The Black Lives Matter (BLM), which was popular on social media a few years

ago, also drew attention to the disadvantaged situation of black groups in society. However, the

"cancel culture" has become more and more forceful in recent years. People's control over the

degree and scope of punishment is worse than before, gradually affecting many netizens who

only express their plain views on the Internet. The cancel culture has evolved into the

suppression of mainstream opinions against minority opinions. There has been considerable

discussion over whether or not "canceling" someone has any long-term ramifications for their

career or reputation due to the issues around cancel culture. When taken in its broadest
 Zheng 3

definition, Cancel Culture refers to a type of collective punishment meted out to public

personalities, and increasingly to private people, who have found themselves in the public glare

as a consequence of offensive or insensitive statements or conduct.

Secondly, the current cancellation culture is no longer just a weapon for the minorities,

like it occurs in many contemporary social movements. When cancel culture evolves further

because it is an instinctive and devolved movement and does not have a developed political party

group, it will inevitably hurt the innocent and become violent (Matei, par 5). Even though the

cancel culture raises people's awareness of their words and actions and encourages them to

adhere to proper beliefs, it also creates a combative atmosphere among those already in conflict.

Some people are terrified of being canceled and are afraid to express their genuine feelings. In

contrast, others are outraged by the cancellation and express their displeasure by increasing their

level of dissatisfaction. This has the effect of shrinking the intermediate zone considerably while

simultaneously moving social discourse further and further down the path of polarization.

Conservative individuals grow increasingly conservative while radical individuals grow

increasingly radical. As a result, free speech on the Internet has almost completely evaporated,

and everyone talks only after giving it considerable attention. Furthermore, it is because certain

politicians or online opinion instigators use free speech features and the strength of the

uninformed people to accomplish their objectives (UC BERKELEY, Par 15). One of the social

network characteristics is that we can only get a sense of who a person is by looking at their

home page. We do not know anything about their educational and developmental history. Some

individuals will readily accept whatever they read or hear on the Internet, and they will then

share that information with others. Some rumors will come true as a result of the dissemination

of erroneous information. Those that belief in the genuine truth will be reduced to a minority at
 Zheng 4

this point, and they will be assaulted by the uninformed until the truth is no longer being told in

its entirety.

In conclusion, because the Internet is such a liberating environment, individuals can

express themselves without fear of repercussions. Even though it is simple to meet like-minded

individuals, it will surely draw many individuals who have opposing viewpoints. Furthermore,

everyone on the Internet is harsher and unpleasant than they are in real life. It is simple to inflict

substantial psychological trauma and put undue pressure on the individual's originator of an idea.

While cancel culture does have a role in society, that position is quite restricted. If we "called

them in" and gave them chances for repentance and resolution, our society would reap more

significant advantages. Viewing one another as disposable is counterproductive; seeing one

another as entire human beings who can grow from our errors is beneficial to everybody.

(Word count: 1064)

 Zheng 5

Works Cited

Matei, Adrienne. "Call-out Culture: How to Get It Right (and Wrong)." The Guardian,

4 Nov. 2019, www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/nov/01/call-out-culture-obama-

social-media.

UC BERKELEY, Emma T. "Cancel Culture and Call Out Culture Are Not the Same." Study

Breaks, 26 July 2020, studybreaks.com/thoughts/cancel-or-call-out/.