Cancel Culture is Evil

If we lose business integrity, we are all lost.

Cover photo: @jerrysilfwer

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:

  • Avoid breezy grand­stand­ing. CSR- and ESG activ­it­ies should be laser-focused, clearly defined, and business-relevant.
  • Internally, cel­eb­rate the diversity of thought. Having cowork­ers who think dif­fer­ently is an asset to any busi­ness culture.
  • Don’t let the can­cel cul­ture intim­id­ate you. Protesters are loud and noisy, primar­ily online, but they don’t have the num­bers to match.
  • Direct your resources towards your brand com­munity. Most of your cus­tom­er base will be in the silent major­ity, not in the extremes.

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:

  • Indirect third-party effect of fun­da­ment­al rights (“Drittwirkung der Grundrechte”). Fundamental rights in the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz, GG) are enforce­able against the state and indir­ectly affect rela­tions between private indi­vidu­als and private law. This prin­ciple means that courts and civil law must inter­pret private dis­putes in light of con­sti­tu­tion­al rights, par­tic­u­larly free­dom of speech.
  • Freedom of expres­sion is a fun­da­ment­al right of para­mount import­ance. The rul­ing elev­ated free­dom of expres­sion (Meinungsfreiheit, Article 5 GG) to a core prin­ciple of a demo­crat­ic soci­ety. It declared that free speech should be a pri­or­ity in most leg­al con­flicts, espe­cially in cases involving pub­lic dis­course and demo­crat­ic debate. Boycotts and pub­lic cri­ti­cism were con­sidered val­id forms of polit­ic­al expres­sion, rein­for­cing civic par­ti­cip­a­tion and dissent.

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:

  • Strengthened free­dom of speech in post-war Germany, ensur­ing that indi­vidu­als could cri­ti­cize past Nazi fig­ures without leg­al repercussions.
  • Shaped Germany’s demo­crat­ic iden­tity, mak­ing it harder for eco­nom­ic interests to sup­press pub­lic cri­ti­cism through civil lawsuits.
  • Become a mod­el for con­sti­tu­tion­al inter­pret­a­tion, inspired later European human rights jurisprudence.

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 17th cen­tury, yet it is found­a­tion­al know­ledge today. The abol­i­tion­ist move­ment in the 19th 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. 

Evelyn Beatrice Hall, The Friends of Voltaire

I dis­ap­prove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” 5Evelyn Beatrice Hall. (2023, November 19). In Wikipedia. https://​en​.wiki​pe​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​E​v​e​l​y​n​_​B​e​a​t​r​i​c​e​_​H​all

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

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.

Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann - Spiral of Silence - Doctor Spin - The PR Blog
Professor Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (1916 – 2010). (Credit: Wikipedia.)

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.

Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (1916 – 2010)

To the indi­vidu­al, not isol­at­ing him­self is more import­ant than his own judge­ment. […] This is the point where the indi­vidu­al is vul­ner­able; this is where social groups can pun­ish him for fail­ing to toe the line.”

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

Noam Chomsky

The smart way to keep people pass­ive and obed­i­ent is to strictly lim­it the spec­trum of accept­able opin­ion, but allow very lively debate with­in that spec­trum — even encour­age the more crit­ic­al and dis­sid­ent views. That gives people the sense that there’s free think­ing going on, while all the time the pre­sup­pos­i­tions of the sys­tem are being rein­forced by the lim­its put on the range of the debate.”

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:

  • Populism. The spir­al of silence the­ory sug­gests that indi­vidu­als are less likely to express their views if they per­ceive these views to be in the minor­ity or socially unac­cept­able. In the con­text of pop­u­lism, this can lead to a situ­ation where main­stream or mod­er­ate views are under­rep­res­en­ted in pub­lic dis­course, giv­ing dis­pro­por­tion­ate voice and momentum to more extreme, pop­u­list opin­ions that may appear more wide­spread than they are. 7Silfwer, J. (2018, August 6). How To Fight Populism. Doctor Spin | The PR Blog. https://​doc​tor​spin​.net/​h​o​w​-​t​o​-​f​i​g​h​t​-​p​o​p​u​l​i​sm/
  • Cancel cul­ture. The spir­al of silence may amp­li­fy can­cel cul­ture by dis­cour­aging indi­vidu­als from speak­ing against or ques­tion­ing the dom­in­ant nar­rat­ive for fear of social ostra­cisa­tion or back­lash. This can cre­ate an envir­on­ment where only one view­point is heard or deemed accept­able, and oppos­ing views are silenced, some­times lead­ing to the pub­lic sham­ing or ‘can­cel­la­tion’ of indi­vidu­als who express these con­trary opin­ions. 8Silfwer, J. (2020, August 24). Cancel Culture is Evil. Doctor Spin | The PR Blog. https://​doc​tor​spin​.net/​c​a​n​c​e​l​-​c​u​l​t​u​re/

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 repercussion.

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:

  • A truly diverse organ­isa­tion allows employ­ees of dif­fer­ent polit­ic­al per­sua­sions to work side-by-side towards a com­mon busi­ness goal.

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.


Jerry Silfwer - Doctor Spin - Spin Factory - Public Relations

THANKS FOR READING.
Need PR help? Hire me here.

Signature - Jerry Silfwer - Doctor Spin

Annotations
Annotations
1 Cancel 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
2 Velasco, 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. https://​doi​.org/​1​0​.​2​1​6​5​9​/​r​u​p​k​a​t​h​a​.​v​1​2​n​5​.​r​i​o​c​1​s​2​1n2
3 Deplatforming. (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
4 Jud Süß. (2023, November 10). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jud_S%C3%BC%C3%9F
5 Evelyn Beatrice Hall. (2023, November 19). In Wikipedia. https://​en​.wiki​pe​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​E​v​e​l​y​n​_​B​e​a​t​r​i​c​e​_​H​all
6 Opinion 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
7 Silfwer, J. (2018, August 6). How To Fight Populism. Doctor Spin | The PR Blog. https://​doc​tor​spin​.net/​h​o​w​-​t​o​-​f​i​g​h​t​-​p​o​p​u​l​i​sm/
8 Silfwer, J. (2020, August 24). Cancel Culture is Evil. Doctor Spin | The PR Blog. https://​doc​tor​spin​.net/​c​a​n​c​e​l​-​c​u​l​t​u​re/
9 Whistleblowing. (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
10 Shuraeva, L., & Korinets, A. (2023). Social effect of “can­cel cul­ture” on the digit­al envir­on­ment: the case of gen­er­a­tions Y and Z. Vestnik Universiteta. https://​doi​.org/​1​0​.​2​6​4​2​5​/​1​816 – 4277-2022 – 12-248 – 256
11 Actually, I pro­mote a Stoic approach to pub­lic rela­tions. A busi­ness should strive for recog­ni­tion through dig­nity by endur­ing the path of the obstacle.
12 McGee, 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
13 Silfwer, 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/
14 Santos, 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 Applications, 4. https://​doi​.org/​1​0​.​2​3​8​8​0​/​A​B​C​A​-​1​6​0​0​0​169
15 Unfocused 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.
Jerry Silfwer
Jerry Silfwerhttps://doctorspin.net/
Jerry Silfwer, alias Doctor Spin, is an awarded senior adviser specialising in public relations and digital strategy. Currently CEO at Spin Factory and KIX Communication Index. Before that, he worked at Whispr Group NYC, Springtime PR, and Spotlight PR. Based in Stockholm, Sweden.

The Cover Photo

The cover photo isn't related to public relations obviously; it's just a photo of mine. Think of it as a 'decorative diversion', a subtle reminder that it's good to have hobbies outside work.

The cover photo has

.

Subscribe to SpinCTRL—it’s 100% free!

Join 2,550+ fellow PR lovers and subscribe to Jerry’s free newsletter on communication and psychology.
What will you get?

> PR commentary on current events.
> Subscriber-only VIP content.
> My personal PR slides for .key and .ppt.
> Discounts on upcoming PR courses.
> Ebook on getting better PR ideas.
Subscribe to SpinCTRL today by clicking SUBSCRIBE and get your first free send-out instantly.

Latest Posts
Similar Posts
Most Popular