Cancel Culture and Free Speech
Cancel Culture and Free Speech
(I don’t like the phrase “cancel culture” because it suggests that there is something cultural about it, and it is more like annihilation than mere cancellation; but I will go along with it.) When a person is cancelled because of their speech there are two forms of speech that are outlawed: the speech of the person cancelled and the speech of those who might wish to defend that person. The former is treated as a criminal, with penalties attaching, and the defenders are treated as accomplices to the crime, thus incurring a similar punishment. A short time ago I issued an invitation, or challenge, to question me on the topic of cancellation: not one person responded, by email or phone. What can we infer from this? You might think it is because everyone thinks the cancellation is justified and there is nothing more to be said. I know for a fact that this is not true, so why the silence? The best explanation is that no one wants to be seen as opposed to the cancellation. They are afraid of what will happen to them if it becomes known that they are open-minded or sympathetic. They acquiesce in the cancellation because they fear the repercussions of publicly not acquiescing. That is to say, they are cowards. They are terrified that their careers might be harmed. I need not make historical analogies. They are restricting their own speech because of the penalties that may accrue to them. So, free speech is doubly discouraged. There is no free speech on such matters in academic philosophy in America. This is no different from other forms of suppression of speech, and just as evil. The perpetrators are people calling themselves feminists. They obviously don’t believe in free speech. This is deplorable and disgusting. There is no such cancellation of me in the rest of the world, or suppression of people opposed to this cancellation. But here in America, the land of free speech, speech is being vigorously suppressed. People fear loss of reputation, opportunity, and even employment for speaking their minds. But no shame is felt by those enforcing the cancellation. They are really no different from other opponents of free speech, probably the most basic intellectual value.
I could not agree more. The irony is that a shifting minority calling for cancellation is often able to intimidate the majority of people, who are either afraid to speak up or they enforce the cancellation to protect their careers.
You put the point very well. It’s hard to know who is more contemptible, the intimidating minority or the intimidated majority; I go for the latter. This is the first time I’ve seen someone dare to say this publicly, so I commend you.
My attempt to solve the problem of cancel culture is quite simple and to me obvious: everything public is taken personally and everything personal is in the public sphere. Of course there is the matter of why often the facts are distorted as was in the case of your expulsion from your position at the University; still I stand by my conjecture and was considering seeking the feedback of a sociologist who pioneered the idea of interaction rituals who I have a correspondence with.
The cause of this sharp blur between the public and private is social media and smart phones- a chance encounter and I can cite numerous, like that “racist” woman in Central Park or police killings during the COVID riots. I think I can try to apply social theory to it and maybe you would buy it,. I do wonder whether my thesis is plausible
I’m not clear what the thesis is.
I’ll put it in a clearer way. In a few days. My idea is really simple so there should be a way of expressing it.