Has Cancel Culture Started to Squash Free Speech like a Bug?

The recent cancellation of an American's profile on Facebook for suggesting that their cousin was spreading false information about Democrats sparked a wave of debate about the role of cancel culture in contemporary society. The incident highlights a significant tension between personal accountability and the protection of free speech under the constitutional framework.

Cancellation: A Frequent Occurrence Amongst Social Media Users

This cancellation, initiated by an evangelical cousin who took offense at a statement suggesting their involvement in a conspiracy, served as a reminder that cancel culture is alive and well within the digital realm. Such incidents often occur when individuals or groups feel their values are under threat and seek to silence perceived offenders. For instance, the social commentator referred to as 'the USA freak' faced backlash for suggesting that certain narratives about a political figure were false, leading to their Facebook profile being canceled by their relative.

The term 'cancel culture' refers to the phenomenon where individuals or groups publicly condemn and attempt to ostracize those who have expressed opinions or behaviors deemed offensive or harmful. This process can involve social boycotts, the removal of social media accounts, and in some cases, even legal repercussions. In this context, the cancellation of the 'USA freak' serves as a case study of how rapidly opinions can spread and lead to real-world consequences.

Results of the Election: A Return to Constitutional Norms?

The article underscores the importance of questioning the validity and impact of cancel culture by pointing out that the 2020 election provided a crucial turning point. The victory of a candidate who was committed to upholding the Constitution marked a potential end to the dominance of cancel culture in American society. The emphasis on constitutional values implies a shift away from the whims of social media and back towards the rule of law.

The newfound respect for constitutional principles is seen as a move towards a more inclusive and fair treatment of citizens. For instance, the author argues that the election revealed a people who are no longer willing to let isms such as racism and fascism dominate the discourse. These isms, once academic discussioins, have become tools for political division, and the election showcased a clear rejection of such divisive rhetoric. This shift underscores the growing recognition that every American is entitled to the same rights and should not be used as a pawn in political games.

The Future of Free Speech in the Context of Cancel Culture

The idea that cancel culture has been defeated is an optimistic yet complex one. While the election may have shifted the political climate, the question of free speech remains central. The author notes that free speech typically refers to the government's non-prosecution of individuals expressing opinions, as guaranteed in modern constitutions. However, the more stringent and unrealistic interpretation of free speech, which entails the right to say anything at any time without consequence, is a fantasy.

The author suggests that a more balanced view is necessary. Free speech must be protected, but it also implies the responsibility to consider the consequences of our words and actions. The right to free speech is not absolute, and speech that is harmful, threatening, or illegal should not be protected. Consequently, the ongoing tension between the freedoms of expression and the need to maintain social norms and the rule of law is a critical issue.

In conclusion, the battle against cancel culture and the preservation of free speech remain pertinent in today's society. While the election represented a victory for those upholding constitutional values, the struggle continues to strike a balance between accountability and protection. The future of free speech in America hinges on finding a middle ground where individuals are held accountable for their actions while their right to express opinions is respected and protected.