“Cancel culture significantly limits free speech and open debate in Western societies.”

Harper's Magazine published a joint letter from a diverse range of 153 prominent writers, including Salman Rushdie and Margaret Atwood, concerned more generally that 'the free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted'.

Some 14% of adults who had heard at least a fair amount about cancel culture described it as a form of censorship, such as a restriction on free speech.

People might rather keep quiet than speak up on matters they feel are unconventional or unpopular, which results in a kind of thinking that is all the same. This type of calmness is dangerous as progress in societies is driven by new ideas that are brought about fighting the existing and engaging in difficult conversations. In cancel culture, the ramifications and the consequences don't end with a single person on an individual level, it goes much further and creates drastic changes to the principle of freedom of expression.

To critics, social media call-outs inhibit open debate and thereby threaten traditional academic freedom to express unpopular views. Efforts to call out inappropriate speech or behavior can lead to legal, professional, or social consequences for those accused; to some, this represents 'cancel culture run amok'.

Another major drawback is the chilling effect it can have on free speech and open discourse. People may become hesitant to express nuanced opinions or engage in debate for fear of being 'canceled.' This can stifle intellectual exploration and prevent important conversations from happening, as the risk of public shaming outweighs the potential benefits of sharing an idea.

Self-censorship poses significant concerns in academic and professional environments, where the free exchange of ideas is crucial. The fear of cancellation makes people afraid of expressing their opinions about political, social, or cultural things for fear of retribution. This self-censorship also affects the larger society because free expression is impeded, and this is against democratic values, particularly the value of open dialogue and debate.

We show that framing free speech restrictions as the consequence of cancel culture does not increase support for free speech among Republicans. Further, when left-wing groups utilize the cancel culture framing, Republicans become even less supportive of those groups' free speech rights.

In response to the overarching inquiry regarding the influence of cancel culture on the freedom of expression of university students, this study unequivocally concludes that this cultural phenomenon exerts a substantial influence. The findings expose a palpable fear of cancellation, significantly shaping the way these students express themselves.

FIRE has long argued that even when instances of cancel culture do not violate the First Amendment because they involve private rather than government actors, punishing people for their speech undermines the culture of free expression that undergirds our free speech laws.

Alan Dershowitz's book, 'Cancel Culture: The Latest Attack on Free Speech and Due Process,' argues against the worst excesses of cancel culture, such as the rush to judgment and the devastating results it can have on those who may be innocent, and the power of social media to effect punishment without a thorough examination of evidence.

Those who lament cancel culture say they want free speech, but they fear counterspeech. The logical implication of the panic over cancel culture is that, well, something ought to be done about it. Yet a curb on what the Supreme Court called “counterspeech”—the term used in the Harper's letter—would not only result in a world with less free speech in it; it would also chill a form of speech that acts as the only check we have left on speech that is universally regarded as bad.

Assistant Professor Franciska Coleman notes that “Cancel culture is a type of social speech regulation that facilitates domination. It resembles the very type of nationwide censorship that the founders were trying to avoid when they prohibited government censorship of speech.” She also states that it heightens polarization and that education, rather than exclusion, should be the preferred approach.

In Western societies like the US and parts of Europe, cancel culture is loud and fast. This is because these societies have long celebrated individualism, freedom of speech and activism. When someone says or does something offensive, the public, especially on platforms like X (formerly Twitter), reacts instantly. There are trending hashtags, viral videos, open letters and even brand boycotts.

Supporters of cancel culture argue that it functions as a tool of social justice, holding individuals accountable for their actions and addressing inequalities by empowering marginalized voices. Opponents, however, contend that cancel culture poses a threat to freedom of speech and expression, as it nurtures a culture of intolerance and fear to express dissent.

A Harvard CAPS-Harris poll conducted in March 2021 found that 64% of respondents believe a 'growing cancel culture' is threatening their freedom with 36% of respondents agreeing that cancel culture is a 'big problem.'

The term, like the phenomenon itself, means that people are removed from prominent positions on account of an ideological breach.

Pro 1: Cancel culture allows marginalized people to seek accountability where the justice system fails. The Me Too movement gave innumerable women (and some men) the ability to call out and maybe cancel their countless abusers in a forum where the accusations could be widely heard.

Critics argue that cancel culture can devolve into mob justice, where the pursuit of accountability ignores principles of proportionality and due process. Moreover, the lines between accountability and suppression of free speech can become blurred, fostering an environment of fear where individuals hesitate to voice unpopular opinions or engage in controversial debates.

In the United States, the First Amendment protects individuals from government censorship but does not extend to private companies, allowing social media platforms to enforce their own content moderation policies. This has raised concerns about the balance between protecting free speech and preventing harmful content, especially as social media serves as a tool for both activism and disinformation.

The debate over cancel culture's impact on free speech has intensified since 2020, with prominent academics and public figures resigning or being removed from positions following social media campaigns. Notable cases include the departure of scholars from universities over controversies regarding gender identity and other ideological disputes, which proponents cite as evidence of chilling effects on academic discourse.