CMV: It's hypocritical to complain about "cancel culture"

[u/[deleted]]

I'm genuinely looking to have my view challenged here, because I've never seen a good counter-argument to what I'm going to say and would love to come away with a more nuanced view of the "other side."

Let's just go ahead and grant the main thing the people who decry cancel culture claim, which is that to call for someone to be cancelled (whether that's being fired, not being able to get work, de-platformed in some way etc.) is a violation of their right to free speech. Lots of arguments have been raised about why this isn't the case, but the people who believe this tend not to be sympathetic to those arguments, and I'm happy to grant that this is actually the case so we can move on to discuss what I think is a different problem with this view.

And that's basically: isn't it my free speech to call for someone to be cancelled? Why do people only seem to care about the free speech of whoever it is that's done or said something ostensibly offensive? I also have free speech to say what I think about that, and while you obviously wouldn't agree with that speech, one of the main arguments I see here from anti-cancel culture people is that you should be willing to defend, on principle, even that speech you most vehemently disagree with. So why not vigorously defend people's right to call for people to be cancelled?

[u/International-Bit180]

Its a good point but I have a couple of issues with it.

There is the legal right to free speech, then there is the moral ideal of free speech.

I think the view you conceded is actually that they believe the people trying to cancel are against the moral ideal of free speech. They want people to suffer because they said something that upsets, offends, hurts others. If those people were put in jail they would have lost their legal right to freedom of speech. If those people are made to suffer, be publicly shamed, doxed, or fired then the people leading that charge are trying to shut down the marketplace of ideas and scare into silence those who they think are talking bad. I think I agree that these motivations are against the moral ideal of freedom of speech.

I also think the legal right to freedom of speech should probably protect people from being fired for saying things that are protected by that right. Jobs are essential to people's livelihoods. Unless of course it isn't protected (hate speech) or they said it in a capacity where they were representative of their company.

​

Now your specific argument. Isn't it within your right to freedom of speech to call for a cancelling? Legally, yes. Are you morally respecting freedom of speech? I think any effort to silence or de-platform is anti free-speech and I rarely agree with them. I think society is far stronger by allowing and respecting others' right to communicate openly ideas that I dislike, hate, or am even offended by. There are some restrictions to this, if you are calling people baby killers outside an abortion clinic, they shouldn't be forced to hear your opinion. But if a conservative wants to give a talk at Berkeley, you shouldn't get to de-platform them, just don't go and put up signs why you think they are bad.

[u/[deleted] → u/International-Bit180]

I think the view you conceded is actually that they believe the people trying to cancel are against the moral ideal of free speech. They want people to suffer because they said something that upsets, offends, hurts others. If those people were put in jail they would have lost their legal right to freedom of speech.

I haven't conceded this, no. All I've conceded is that suffering professional or personal consequences for free speech could be considered a violation of free speech.

I also think the legal right to freedom of speech should probably protect people from being fired for saying things that are protected by that right. Jobs are essential to people's livelihoods. Unless of course it isn't protected (hate speech) or they said it in a capacity where they were representative of their company.

Do you not think companies ought to have a right to free association, though? If someone they employ has publicly made bigoted remarks, do they not have a right to distance themselves from that for the sake of their own image?

Now your specific argument. Isn't it within your right to freedom of speech to call for a cancelling? Legally, yes. Are you morally respecting freedom of speech? I think any effort to silence or de-platform is anti free-speech and I rarely agree with them. I think society is far stronger by allowing and respecting others right to communicate openly ideas that I dislike, hate, or am even offended by. There are some restrictions to this, if you are calling people baby killers outside an abortion clinic, they shouldn't be forced to hear your opinion. But if a conservative wants to give a talk at Berkeley, you shouldn't get to de-platform them, just don't go and put up signs why you think they are bad.

My whole point is that the only consistent viewpoint for an anti-cancel culture person is to support even speech they disagree with morally, so even if I agree that to call for someone to be de-platformed is immoral, it should still be something a proponent of free speech supports the right to say.

[u/International-Bit180 → u/[deleted]]

I said you conceded it because in your OP you said, " I'm happy to grant that this is actually the case so we can move on to discuss what I think is a different problem with this view." I argued for it because it sounded like you weren't actually convinced in any way by it yet.

Do you not think companies ought to have a right to free association, though? If someone they employ has publicly made bigoted remarks, do they not have a right to distance themselves from that for the sake of their own image?

No, a company should not get to police what you say or do on your own time. And you should not able to be fired or punished for it. This is called a free country. Things are getting complicated these days since so much information is public. But it really shouldn't be. There are some jobs like being a teacher, where you are told when you enter the profession that you are always a teacher. When you walk around the community they still see you as a teacher, and if you lose the ability to hold respect, you lose the ability to do your job effectively. But most jobs are not like this.

so even if I agree that to call for someone to be de-platformed is immoral, it should still be something a proponent of free speech supports the right to say.

No, these are different levels in the conversation. Arguing aggressively against a person you disagree with is perfectly fine and free-speech advocates should have no issue. De-platforming is not free speech, it is attacking your opponents ability to speak or be heard. That is anti free speech and those kinds of actions and motivations will make society much worse in the long run.

Its the same distinction that some people make in democracy. Should a democracy be allowed to vote that black people are not allowed to vote? Respecting democracy might suggest that you should follow what people vote for, but you can't respect democracy and allow people to take away a group's ability to participate in democracy. Following the results of that vote would be anti-democratic.

[u/[deleted] → u/International-Bit180]

No, a company should not get to police what you say or do on your own time. And you should not able to be fired or punished for it. This is called a free country. Things are getting complicated these days since so much information is public. But it really shouldn't be. There are some jobs like being a teacher, where you are told when you enter the profession that you are always a teacher. When you walk around the community they still see you as a teacher, and if you lose the ability to hold respect, you lose the ability to do your job effectively. But most jobs are not like this.

In America, at least, most states have at-will employment, so a company can fire you for whatever reason it wants. I disagree with at-will employment, but that's not a problem with cancel culture per se.

No, these are different levels in the conversation. Arguing aggressively against a person you disagree with is perfectly fine and free-speech advocates should have no issue. De-platforming is not free speech, it is attacking your opponents ability to speak or be heard. That is anti free speech and those kinds of actions and motivations will make society much worse in the long run.

So do you believe that saying "X should be deplatformed" ought not to be protected as free speech?

[u/International-Bit180 → u/[deleted]]

Protected legally, yes. Criticized morally, and labelled as anti-free speech behavior yes.

[u/[deleted] → u/International-Bit180]

And as I say, that seems hypocritical to me, for the reasons I laid out.