Eleven score and 10 years ago, a bunch of guys wrote that people should be allowed to say whatever they want without fear of government retribution (with a caveat on the side). Now, we just call it “cancel culture” and Tweet about how unfair it is. We’re all familiar with the case United States v. Cancel Culture that happened never and the nonexistent fallout of it. That is to say, it’s not real. There is no solid structure for a culture of cancelling. The people that are cancelled rarely lose the security of their jobs, pay grades or statuses. How many times are we going to cancel Shane Dawson and Jeffree Star for them to pop back up like Doctor Who with a new face, new wardrobe, new posse and new accent? If cancel culture can’t get one thing right then what can it do?
Every time I hear the words “cancel” and “culture” they are in reference to discussions around character. Someone’s character is being called into question. J.K. Rowling. Ellen Degeneres. Doja Cat. Chris Pratt. Probably Scarlett Johansson on any given day. When these people are cancelled, however, the discussions seem to be more about larger societal issues than the person themselves. For example, when J.K. Rowling doubled down on her transphobic beliefs last summer, the discussion was not simply about her and how awful she was, but instead about the harm her words contributed to. Really, anyone could have said what Rowling said. The fact that it was her only thrust the issue into the spotlight. Replace Rowling with any other public figure, or even a viral no-name, and the devastating effects of transphobia would still have been discussed.
There was no mob attacking Rowling’s house, her rights to “Harry Potter” or her writing ability. She was never in any physical or professional danger. But the trans women who have to live with the rhetoric she broadcasted have it different. Did cancelling Rowling actually help victims of transphobia?
Critics of cancel culture aren’t entirely wrong when they say nothing good can come from cancelling. The problem with cancel culture isn’t that people are getting called out, it’s that people are more interested in ridiculing bigots than helping those harmed by such bigotry. For some, like Goya Foods, cancel culture is a blessing — increasing their visibility and thus profits and success. In trying to boycott Goya, many inadvertently advertised the company for free. In all the outrage over Goya’s support for former President Trump, how much were the immigrants abused and imprisoned by Trump’s administration aided by these efforts?
This isn’t to say cancel culture has no power. The backlash over Kevin Heart’s homophobic Tweets cost him a gig at the Oscar’s. The “cancelling” of Harvey Weinstein was quite literal in that it ended with him in a correctional facility. In this case, it wasn’t cancel culture so much as it was the legal system, but what is cancel culture if not the social court circuit? Many are tried, yes, for a wide range of “crimes”. From Chris Pratt attending a homophobic church to Missouri Senator Josh Hawley fueling the insurrection. How many are convicted? Pratt still enjoys his jobs in “Guardians of the Galaxy” and “Jurassic World”. Hawley’s new book is set to be published and he still has his seat in the Senate.
Cancel culture, like anything, is not without its faults. For some, it causes permanent life changes, for others it brings great attention, for most it is a conversational mayfly. It’s true that free speech is a constitutional right in this country, but so is dissent. If people like J.K. Rowling or Mel Gibson didn’t want to be accused of hateful rhetoric, they shouldn’t have spewed it in the first place.
