Read on Twitter
I campaign on free speech issues for a living. I’ve held off commenting on most discussions about free speech in the last few weeks, but the more I see ‘cancel culture’ being used both as defence and attack, the more concerned I become that we& #39;re conflating different challenges.
Some individuals appears to define ‘cancel culture’ as nothing more than the right to call people out for having opinions you abhor. Many people point out (rightly) that the ability to call out such abhorrent opinions is – in and of itself – an exercise of free speech. I agree.
Others note that all too often those defending free speech are not in fact defending everyone& #39;s right to speak freely but their own rights. This is also true. Sadly, most people only ever become interested in free speech as a concept when their own speech is under attack...
However, it& #39;s wrong to say we shouldn& #39;t be concerned when those in positions of ‘privilege’ express worries about threats to free speech. This line of argument-as well the term ‘cancel culture’ itself-allows us to shift focus away from the many, varied threats to speech globally.
Because it& #39;s not just about well-known writers and academics having their views critiqued in public. The threats include people receiving death and rape threats simply for being women online, or for expressing views in favour of one political party or another.
They include people hounded out of jobs for engaging in lawful, political debate about legal rights and protections based on protected characteristics. They include jail or death for expressing one’s sexuality or religion online –or dissenting against an authoritarian government.
It is disingenuous and dangerous to dismiss a desire to protect free speech as just coming from a desire to protect the status quo or from a fear that underrepresented and marginalised now communities have a voice.
Because in doing so we create an environment that allows anyone’s voice to be silenced, not just the people you disagree with.
