The Controversial Impact of Cancel Culture on Freedom of Speech and Public Discourse (Essay Sample)

Student’s Name Professor’s Name Course Number Date The Controversial Impact of Cancel Culture on Freedom of Speech and Public Discourse Introduction Media studies professor Eve Ng defines cancel culture as "a collective for typically excluded individuals 'calling out' & emphatically expressing the censure of a powerful figure. The term "cancel culture" describes the widespread tendency to abandon (cancel) public people and businesses that have done/said something that is deemed disagreeable (Bouvier 100). The online practice of group shaming, or "cancel culture," is often cited as an example of this phenomenon (Ng 621)." The term "cancel culture" was used in the late 2010s and early 2020s to describe a social climate in which people are socially and professionally excluded for perceived wrongdoing (Clark 88). Most high-profile events involving celebrities involve widespread ostracism on social media and in real life. Those who suffer this kind of social rejection are called "canceled." Cancel culture, or publicly shaming people or groups for misbehavior, has emerged as a contentious issue in today's Society. Others say it stifles free speech and fosters an environment of intolerance, while its proponents say it's necessary to promote accountability and voices from the margins. This study aims to investigate the implications of cancel culture for public dialogue and free expression, weighing the pros and cons of this trend. Clark argues that, via an examination of various views and case examples. However, cancel culture has the potential to be a positive force for social change; its abuse may have adverse outcomes and restrict the range of ideas that can be spoken in public. Clark's overarching goal is to encourage thoughtful discussion of the difficult questions it raises by increasing familiarity with the cancel culture and its effects on Society (Clark 88). Comparison According to the findings of a study by Mukhopadhyay, "cancel culture" is one form of cyberbullying that has spread as the usage of social media has increased. Similarly, Clark contends that the concept of "cancel culture" has far-reaching implications for how we think about and talk about activism in the digital and social media spheres. He traces the history of the social media callout from its roots in Black vernacular tradition to its misappropriation by social elites in the digital age, arguing that marginalized people and groups have successfully utilized helpful anger in online social media spaces as a strategy for networked freedom. On the other hand, Mukhopadhyay argues that the proliferation of digital tools has made it easier for people to discuss divergent points of view in the open. The so-called "cancel culture" is just one example of the many participation cultures and social movements that helped open the door to today's Society. This movement has fostered mob mentality and harmed civic debate, ultimately pushing people out of the community even if its original goal was to call out specific individuals or businesses. Therefore, these studies analyzed how cancel culture has affected the victims' personal and professional lives. Retaliation, public shaming, and cyberbullying led to psychological trauma for the victims. Argument The ability of users to "cancel" others online is a major problem with cancel culture that creates a hostile atmosphere for prominent personalities. A single slip-up can be the end of a digital career in today's cutthroat online environment. It's not fair for important people to always worry that the public would use social media to turn against them on little issues. The fundamental argument favoring cancel culture is that it gives regular social media users more power by enabling them to hold well-known individuals responsible for offensive or detrimental behavior. Results are essential, I agree, but this is not the way to get them. No one should be "canceled" to enforce punishments. The destructive effects of cancel culture outweigh the advantages of taking truly awful people off the internet. It also blurs the line between morality and wickedness and hinders intellectual development in favor of hatred. The cancel culture is out of control and does not exact enough vengeance concerning the wrongs done. It's easy to transgress ethical limits over the internet since critics often say things they wouldn't say in person. It's not uncommon for people to be on the receiving end of venomous comments. It encourages conflict, which stifles the creativity of many artists and usurps others who hold divergent opinions. While the original idea to ban problematic users from platforms had good intentions, it has already evolved into a strategy based on fear rather than payment. Therefore, I argue that rather than reducing the world's toxicity, cancel culture makes it worse. In the late 2010s and early 2020s, the term "cancel culture" emerged, usually with pejorative undertones and used polemically by those claiming to favor free speech and opposed to censorship. It is generally agreed that the term (Ng 621) "callout culture" is a more optimistic way of describing the same idea (Clark 88). Critics of cancel culture believe it's terrible for Society because it makes individuals less likely to share their thoughts in public and serves no useful purpose because it does not accomplish anything. Meaningful social shifts foster intolerance and sometimes even take the form of online harassment. Others support "cancellation" petitions as a free expression since they promote accountability and give the voiceless a platform. (Anderson-Lopez et al. 64). Others dispute the existence of cancel culture, stating that comparable boycotts have been around for a long time. Some public figures' careers have been negatively affected by sanctions, sometimes called "cancellation," while others have complained about cancellation despite carrying on in their previous roles. It describes a social climate in which people are socially and professionally excluded for perceived wrongdoing. The phenomenon of cancel culture was an extreme case of the misuse of societal pressure (Bouvier & Machin 307). Using it as a weapon against those with different views becomes commonplace. Despite the heinous nature of cancel culture, social reprobation is an integral part of a free society (Bouvier& Machin 307). Some people say that cancel culture encourages responsibility, while others say it stifles free speech and open conversation. The implications of social media and cancel culture on diversity are studied by Anderson-Lopez et al. (2021), focusing on young women and "The 100." They say that cancel culture can promote transparency by giving a platform to those marginalized in the past. However, they are also aware of the potential drawbacks, such as the mob mentality that may develop in cancel culture and the simplification of public debate. Anderson-Lopez et al. article explores how audiences respond to fiction generally, with a particular emphasis on the effects of television series. The reasons for the writers' and directors' following creative choices may be gleaned by examining the series' audience and critical reaction. The artistic direction of series like Roseanne has been affected by the opinions of the viewing public (Anderson-Lopez et al. 64). Diversity efforts in speculative media have been made possible thanks to audience demands. This article's theoretical foundation is developed through primary tweets and reception theory study. Bouvier (2020) examines the shortcomings of callouts and cancel culture on Twitter to address social justice concerns. In her view, nuanced dialogue is lost when people on Twitter use hashtags to call out bigots since Twitter's style discourages complexity and may lead to the biased treatment of individuals. Bouvier and Machin (2021) examine the restrictions imposed by Twitter's cancel culture, concluding that it may lead to more hostility and discrimination. They demonstrate how these constraints may lead to a lack of complexity and incivility, distorting crucial facts about racism and distracting from what these incidents tell us about racism today. To increase the visibility of views that reject racism in all forms, Twitter campaigns criticizing people who make racist or xenophobic utterances are meaningful (Bouvier& Machin 307). They also reveal how our nation's most powerful institutions ignore critical social justice issues. There is apprehension that the prevalence of extremes, moral outrages, a lack of complexity, and incivility might skew the representation of topics on social media platforms like Twitter. Three Twitter hashtags that call out racist behavior are analyzed in this research using Critical Discourse Analysis. In her analysis of the term "cancel culture," Clark (2020) argues that critics of social justice organizations have used it for their ends. She investigates how marginalized communities have used online platforms to punish wrongdoers. She concludes that elites' inability to grasp the shifting power dynamics of the public sphere in the digital age is to blame for their cavalier approach to censure. In contrast, Norris's (2021) methods cancel culture with skepticism, suggesting that the concept has been exaggerated by conservative media outlets in the pursuit of clicks and ratings. She acknowledges that cancel culture exists but claims it has had no impact on speech and discussion. Since most high-profile incidents involve celebrities or prominent people with a platform to defend themselves, she does not believe cancel culture has led to severe limits on free speech or the interchange of ideas. In her book "The Curious Cases of Cancel Culture," Lauren Burmah investigates the phenomenon of cancel culture and its effects on Society and how people express themselves in public. Burmah contends that cancel culture is more nuanced than either/or categorizations a...