Cancel Culture is Evil

Cancel cul­ture is evil.

We cel­eb­rate diversity in the work­place, but we’ve ceased to encour­age diversity in thoughts, opin­ions, or sense of humour.

I fear com­pet­ence and exper­i­ence will begin to mat­ter less than hav­ing opin­ions that are en vogue.

Here we go:

Cancel Culture is Evil

What is can­cel culture?

Cancel cul­ture = the weapon­isa­tion of social out­rage to silence, pun­ish, and exile indi­vidu­als or ideas rather than enga­ging with them in ration­al debate. 

Cancel cul­ture thrives on pub­lic sham­ing, digit­al mob justice, and elim­in­at­ing nuance, redu­cing com­plex human beings to single state­ments or actions — often taken out of con­text or judged ret­ro­act­ively by evolving mor­al standards. 

“Cancel cul­ture or call-out cul­ture is a phrase con­tem­por­ary to the late 2010s and early 2020s used to refer to a form of ostra­cism in which someone is thrust out of social or pro­fes­sion­al circles — wheth­er it be online, on social media, or in per­son. Those sub­ject to this ostra­cism are said to have been ‘can­celled’.”
Source: Wikipedia ¹Cancel cul­ture. (2023, January 4). In Wikipedia. https://​en​.wiki​pe​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​C​a​n​c​e​l​_​c​u​l​t​ure

Conformity, Oppression, and Stagnation

Unlike tra­di­tion­al account­ab­il­ity, which allows for dis­cus­sion, learn­ing, and pro­por­tion­al con­sequences, can­cel cul­ture demands imme­di­ate and abso­lute destruction. 

Historically, soci­et­ies that have embraced ideo­lo­gic­al purges — wheth­er in the form of book burn­ings, black­lists, or polit­ic­al witch hunts — have not led to pro­gress but instead to oppres­sion and intel­lec­tu­al stag­na­tion. Cancel cul­ture, while often dis­guised as act­iv­ism, is fun­da­ment­ally a mod­ern form of author­it­ari­an con­trol, ensur­ing con­form­ity not through reas­on but through intimidation.

In its most extreme form, can­cel cul­ture leads to col­lect­ive amne­sia, eras­ing people, books, films, and even his­tor­ic­al fig­ures from pub­lic life, as if uncom­fort­able real­it­ies can be scrubbed from existence. 

What makes can­cel cul­ture par­tic­u­larly insi­di­ous is that it oper­ates out­side form­al insti­tu­tions, giv­ing unac­count­able digit­al mobs the power to act as judges, jur­ies, and executioners. 

The Terror of Being Next

“Cancel cul­ture on social media is a form of pub­lic sham­ing that aims to dif­fuse pub­lic dis­course and pro­mote tol­er­ance, but can also be viewed as a form of intol­er­ance against oppos­ing views.”
Source: Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities ²Velasco, J. (2020). You are Cancelled: Virtual Collective Consciousness and the Emergence of Cancel Culture as Ideological Purging. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 12. … Continue read­ing

Cancel cul­ture replaces con­ver­sa­tion with coer­cion, cre­at­ing a world where mor­al pur­ity is per­form­at­ive and intel­lec­tu­al explor­a­tion is replaced by ideo­lo­gic­al conformity. 

A soci­ety ruled by the fear of can­cel­la­tion is not a free soci­ety — it is a social pan­op­ticon in which people are not guided by mor­al con­vic­tion but by the ter­ror of being next.

It cre­ates an atmo­sphere of fear (i.e. the spir­al of silence), where people are afraid to express dis­sent­ing opin­ions, ask dif­fi­cult ques­tions, or chal­lenge pre­vail­ing dog­mas. This stifles cre­ativ­ity, intel­lec­tu­al diversity, and essen­tial human inter­ac­tion, as indi­vidu­als con­stantly self-cen­sor to avoid social annihilation. 

How To Navigate Cancel Culture

The cul­ture war with de-plat­form­ing, can­cel cul­ture, online lynch mobs, woke journ­al­ism, pop­u­lism, fake news, and mor­al slackt­iv­ism are fast becom­ing our biggest chal­lenges as PR professionals.

Here’s how to nav­ig­ate can­cel culture:

Learn more: Cancel Culture is Evil

De-Platforming as a Practice

Online lynch mobs some­times force online mod­er­at­ors to de-plat­form indi­vidu­als, part­ner organ­isa­tions, advert­isers, col­lab­or­at­ors, etc.

“Deplatforming, also known as no-plat­form­ing, has been defined as an ‘attempt to boy­cott a group or indi­vidu­al through remov­ing the plat­forms (such as speak­ing ven­ues or web­sites) used to share inform­a­tion or ideas, or ‘the action or prac­tice of pre­vent­ing someone hold­ing views regarded as unac­cept­able or offens­ive from con­trib­ut­ing to a for­um or debate, espe­cially by block­ing them on a par­tic­u­lar web­site’.”
Source: Wikipedia ³Deplatforming. (2023, January 8). In Wikipedia. https://​en​.wiki​pe​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​D​e​p​l​a​t​f​o​r​m​ing

Is de-plat­form­ing a sound practice?

The short answer is no.

From the aggressor’s per­spect­ive, you should nev­er adhere to anti-demo­crat­ic and author­it­ari­an meth­ods of silen­cing your enemies.

From the mod­er­at­or’s per­spect­ive, you should always adhere to your pub­licly avail­able policies and nev­er make excep­tions based on peer pres­sure from online lynch mobs.

From the defend­ant’s per­spect­ive, you should nev­er take your freedoms for gran­ted and enjoy your rights humbly and responsibly. 

Learn more: De-Platforming as a Practice

The Lüth Ruling of 1958

The Lüth rul­ing (BVerfGE 7, 198) was a 1958 decision by the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (Bundesverfassungsgericht) that became a found­a­tion­al pre­ced­ent for the inter­pret­a­tion of free­dom of speech (Meinungsfreiheit) in post-war Germany. It estab­lished that fun­da­ment­al rights (Grundrechte) are defens­ive rights against the state and influ­ence private law, rein­for­cing free­dom of expres­sion as a core con­sti­tu­tion­al principle.

In 1950, Ernst Lüth, a journ­al­ist and former res­ist­ance fight­er against the Nazi régime, pub­licly called for a boy­cott of a new film by Veit Harlan, a dir­ect­or infam­ous for mak­ing Jud Süß (1940), one of the most notori­ous pieces of Nazi pro­pa­ganda. Harlan’s new film, Unsterbliche Geliebte (Immortal Beloved), was met with back­lash because of his past role in spread­ing anti­semit­ic ideo­logy. ⁴Jud Süß. (2023, November 10). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jud_S%C3%BC%C3%9F

Lüth encour­aged cinemas not to screen Harlan’s film, which led the pro­du­cer to sue Lüth under civil law for caus­ing eco­nom­ic harm to the film’s suc­cess. The Hamburg Regional Court ruled against Lüth and issued an injunc­tion pre­vent­ing him from call­ing for a boycott.

The case reached the Federal Constitutional Court, which had to determ­ine wheth­er free­dom of speech, pro­tec­ted by Article 5 of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz, GG), applied to dis­putes between private indi­vidu­als or wheth­er fun­da­ment­al rights only applied to state actions.

In a ground­break­ing rul­ing, the Federal Constitutional Court over­turned the lower court’s decision and ruled in Lüth’s favor, estab­lish­ing two cru­cial leg­al principles:

The Lüth rul­ing set a sig­ni­fic­ant pre­ced­ent in German con­sti­tu­tion­al law by estab­lish­ing that fun­da­ment­al rights influ­ence all areas of law, includ­ing private dis­putes. This decision:

The Lüth rul­ing of 1958 remains one of the most cited and influ­en­tial cases in German leg­al his­tory, form­ing the found­a­tion for Germany’s mod­ern under­stand­ing of free speech and human rights law.

Learn more: The Lüth Ruling of 1958 (to be published) 

Why Uncomfortable Opinions Matters

A demo­cracy that val­ues free speech must, by defin­i­tion, tol­er­ate and engage with uncom­fort­able opin­ions — even those that chal­lenge its foundations. 

Throughout his­tory, the sup­pres­sion of dis­sent­ing voices has often been the pre­curs­or to author­it­ari­an­ism, while soci­et­ies that embraced intel­lec­tu­al con­flict flour­ished in innov­a­tion and self-correction. 

The First Amendment in the United States, the Grundrechte (Basic Rights) in Germany, and the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 10) all enshrine free­dom of expres­sion as a pil­lar of demo­crat­ic society. 

The right to free speech is not genu­inely tested by pop­u­lar or con­veni­ent dis­course — it is tested when opin­ions emerge that offend, con­tra­dict, or dis­rupt the pre­vail­ing social order. 

Without this fric­tion, demo­cracy risks becom­ing a hol­low per­form­ance rather than an evolving, self-crit­ic­al sys­tem. The Lüth rul­ing of 1958 in Germany exem­pli­fies this prin­ciple, rein­for­cing that even calls for eco­nom­ic boy­cotts based on mor­al and his­tor­ic­al argu­ments are pro­tec­ted under free speech.

Historically, the most sig­ni­fic­ant polit­ic­al and sci­entif­ic advance­ments often stemmed from once-uncom­fort­able ideas. Galileo’s asser­tion that the Earth revolves around the Sun was blas­phem­ous in the 17^th cen­tury, yet it is found­a­tion­al know­ledge today. The abol­i­tion­ist move­ment in the 19^th cen­tury was widely seen as rad­ic­al and destabil­ising, yet it forced soci­et­ies to con­front their mor­al contradictions. 

More recently, the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S., fueled by fig­ures like Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, met fierce res­ist­ance because it shattered the illu­sion of racial har­mony and deman­ded an hon­est reck­on­ing with sys­tem­ic injustice. 

A free soci­ety must not mis­take con­sensus for truth — instead, it must allow space for uncom­fort­able speech because today’s heresy may be tomorrow’s mor­al imper­at­ive. No mat­ter how well-inten­tioned, attempts to shield the pub­lic from con­tro­ver­sial dis­course often entrench power struc­tures and stifle progress.

The danger of restrict­ing uncom­fort­able speech is that it out­sources mor­al reas­on­ing to author­it­ies, pla­cing gov­ern­ments, cor­por­a­tions, or élite insti­tu­tions in charge of decid­ing what the pub­lic can and can­not hear. 

This power has been his­tor­ic­ally abused, from the McCarthy-era black­lists in the U.S. to China’s cen­sor­ship of polit­ic­al dis­sent. While there is a legit­im­ate need to pre­vent dir­ect incite­ment to viol­ence, restrict­ing speech under the guise of main­tain­ing “civil­ity” or “social har­mony” is a slip­pery slope.

The para­dox of demo­cracy is that true free­dom allows even the ques­tion­ing of free­dom itself. The chal­lenge, then, is not to elim­in­ate uncom­fort­able opin­ions but to con­front them with bet­ter argu­ments, robust debate, and intel­lec­tu­al courage. 

When a demo­cracy for­gets how to tol­er­ate dis­com­fort, it begins to decay into an echo cham­ber of self-con­grat­u­lat­ory con­form­ity, where the most dan­ger­ous ideas go unspoken.

Learn more: Why Uncomfortable Opinions Matter (to be published)

The Spiral of Silence Theory

Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann’s (1916 – 2010) well-doc­u­mented the­ory on the spir­al of silence (1974) explains why the fear of isol­a­tion due to peer exclu­sion will pres­sure pub­lics to silence their opinions.

The the­ory was developed in the late 1970s in West Germany, partly in response to Noelle-Neumann’s obser­va­tions of how pub­lic opin­ion seemed to shift dur­ing the Nazi régime and post-war Germany.

The spir­al of silence the­ory is based on the idea that people fear social isol­a­tion. This fear influ­ences their will­ing­ness to express their opin­ions, espe­cially if they believe these opin­ions are in the minority.

Rather than risk­ing social isol­a­tion, many choose silence over express­ing their opinions.

As the dom­in­ant coali­tion stands unop­posed, they push the con­fines of what’s accept­able down a nar­row­er and nar­row­er fun­nel, the so-called opin­ion cor­ridor). ⁶Opinion cor­ridor. (2023, April 8). In Wikipedia. https://​en​.wiki​pe​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​O​p​i​n​i​o​n​_​c​o​r​r​i​dor

Noelle-Neumann emphas­ised the medi­a’s role in shap­ing pub­lic per­cep­tion of what opin­ions are dom­in­ant or pop­u­lar, thus influ­en­cing the spir­al of silence. 

Populism and Cancel Culture

The mech­an­isms behind Elisabeth Noelle Neumann’s spir­al of silence the­ory could fuel destruct­ive soci­et­al phe­nom­ena like pop­u­lism and can­cel culture:

In both cases, the spir­al of silence con­trib­utes to a polar­ised envir­on­ment. Views become dom­in­ant not neces­sar­ily because they are more pop­u­lar but because oppos­ing views are not expressed due to fear of social isol­a­tion or repercussions.

Learn more: The Spiral of Silence

Whistleblowing — Or Bad Faith Acting

“A whis­tleblower (also writ­ten as whistle-blower or whistle blower) is a per­son who exposes secret­ive inform­a­tion or activ­ity with­in a private or pub­lic organ­isa­tion that is deemed illeg­al, uneth­ic­al, or not cor­rect. The inform­a­tion of alleged wrong­do­ing can be clas­si­fied in many ways: viol­a­tion of com­pany policy/​rules, law, reg­u­la­tion, or threat to pub­lic interest/​national secur­ity, as well as fraud, and cor­rup­tion.”
Source: Wikipedia ⁹Whistleblowing. (2023, November 10). In Wikipedia. https://​en​.wiki​pe​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​W​h​i​s​t​l​e​b​l​o​w​ing

Grandstanding Out, Business Integrity In

Any PR adviser who demands that brands, in gen­er­al, are mor­ally respons­ible for sid­ing with loud online lynch mobs and brand­callers has ser­i­ously mis­un­der­stood the pur­pose of the PR func­tion — and busi­ness as well. 

The solu­tion is busi­ness integ­rity, not giv­ing in to those who want to con­trol your agenda. ¹⁰Shuraeva, L., & Korinets, A. (2023). Social effect of “can­cel cul­ture” on the digit­al envir­on­ment: the case of gen­er­a­tions Y and Z. Vestnik Universiteta. … Continue read­ing

As a cham­pi­on for focused and stra­tegic­ally lim­ited com­mu­nic­a­tion, the PR professional’s job is to assist the brand in stand­ing up for itself.

Not to side with online lynch mobs.

Because a brand with integ­rity isn’t ashamed of being in busi­ness, it isn’t ashamed of provid­ing out­stand­ing products and ser­vices at great prices. It isn’t ashamed to provide tax income for the state and pro­duce jobs for people. It isn’t ashamed of driv­ing soci­ety for­ward through innov­a­tion, fin­an­cial risk-tak­ing, and hard work. ¹¹Actually, I pro­mote a Stoic approach to pub­lic rela­tions. A busi­ness should strive for recog­ni­tion through dig­nity by endur­ing the path of the obstacle.

Few things in busi­ness make me sick­er to the stom­ach than when com­mu­nic­at­ors are sham­ing innov­at­ors, entre­pren­eurs, and fin­an­cial risk-takers for not being woke enough.

Cancel Culture = Bad-Faith Capitalism

“Cancel cul­ture may lead to share­hold­er law­suits for breach of fidu­ciary duty, poten­tially redu­cing cor­por­ate profits.”
Source: Social Science Research Network ¹²McGee, R. (2021). Cancel Culture, Breach of Fiduciary Responsibility & Shareholder Lawsuits. Social Science Research Network. https://​doi​.org/​1​0​.​2​1​3​9​/​S​S​R​N​.​3​7​7​5​117

As PR pro­fes­sion­als, we know that the news media can some­times become an unreas­on­able machine set to des­troy busi­nesses and indi­vidu­als without a fair tri­al. Our job is to pre­pare and pro­tect our brands from online lynch mobs. 

Today, there is a whole new set of lynch mobs to account for: 

Online act­iv­ists use secret social media groups to drive de-plat­form­ing activ­it­ies and impose can­cel cul­ture. They use delib­er­ate mis­in­ter­pret­a­tion, calls for boy­cotts, card-stack­ing, cherry-pick­ing, and guilt-by-silence to coerce brands into sub­mis­sion. ¹³Silfwer, J. (2020, June 9). How to Speak with Social Activists. Doctor Spin | The PR Blog. https://​doc​tor​spin​.net/​s​o​c​i​a​l​-​a​c​t​i​v​i​s​ts/

The beha­viour amp­li­fies polar­isa­tion by cre­at­ing extremes of iden­tity polit­ics on both sides. This devel­op­ment is rap­idly becom­ing more chal­len­ging to PR than the struggle of adapt­ing to a digit­al soci­ety. ¹⁴Santos, E. (2020). The Internet and Cancellation Culture: The Impact of the Public Opinion on the Exercise of the Individual Right to Freedom of Expression. Annals of Bioethics & Clinical … Continue read­ing

If com­mer­cial com­mu­nic­a­tions depart­ments accept the woke nar­rat­ive without ques­tion, our pro­fes­sion becomes a can­cer­ous and destruct­ive anti-cap­it­al­ist­ic force from within. 

Piggybacking on polit­ic­al move­ments can be a viable PR strategy — if such a strategy makes busi­ness sense. ¹⁵Unfocused cor­por­ate cul­tur­al appro­pri­ation is not a “safe” brand strategy. Several big-name brands have got­ten into ser­i­ous trouble by shame­lessly piggy­back­ing on the social justice agenda.

Consider this:

Providing stable employ­ment and salar­ies through innov­a­tion, col­lab­or­a­tion, and hard work will always be the best cata­lyst for civil soci­ety to engage in social causes in their spare time — how it ought to be.

And while some busi­nesses are out of touch with their com­munit­ies, Red Bull surely doesn’t fall under that category.