Cancel Culture: The Delivery of Justice?

“Ashton Kutcher fears being cancelled for sex trafficking scandal.”

Kutcher is a public figure predominantly associated with the comedic series “That ‘70’s Show” and his inaugural organisation against sex trafficking. Recently, his co-star Danny Masterson was convicted of the sexual assault and rape of two women, rendering him sentenced to thirty years in prison. Danny Masterson's connection to Ashton Kutcher put him in the spotlight for Masterson’s transgression. Kutcher is a board member of Thorn: Digital Defenders of Children (i.e., Kutcher's and Moore’s sex trafficking organisation); therefore, fans expected a response to Masterson’s transgression. Kutcher provided a legal deposition for Masterson, including characterizations such as “dedicated and loyal [husband]” and “excellent role model” alluding to the support for Masterson. As the founder of an anti-sex trafficking organisation, Kutcher was scrutinised for his allegiance to his former cast member, and his punishment included reassigning his organisation to new leadership. Was the scrutinization of Kutcher efficient in promoting justice?

Cancel culture is a movement denoted by the accountability of celebrities and people with platforms; however, it has more recently progressed into a worldwide attempt to exercise justice through online discourse. Believers of cancel culture argue that it resembles the public sphere– a means of democratic and open discourse, and “being cancelled” is the sheer and unavoidable consequence for people who have wronged, thereby violating the quest for social justice. Furthermore, fervent advocates for cancel culture have an imperative significance in holding celebrities with far reaching platforms accountable for harm to communities and minorities. However, further contemplation on cancel culture and counter-arguments to the movement highlight that it has degenerated into mass media bullying and revoking the right to free speech. The primary question of the efficacy of cancel culture lies on the legitimacy of the “enforcers of justice.” Are internet users legible social justice advisors?

Criticising in an impersonal forum empowers people to become more vicious and spiteful, legitimising verbal violence. Hateful commentary against public figures enables and fuels the crowd, signalling an attack on an individual. This potent and overwhelming reception of negative and disapproving evaluation of behaviour, inevitably results in “cancelling.” It is understood that cancel culture is not serving its purpose of serving justice on the internet but rather initiates debate on the application of democracy online and the limitations of free speech.

A common phenomenon is retrospective cancellation; this requires the inspection of a person’s past and questions problematic behaviour in the public arena. Common examples include the lead singer of The Smiths, Steven Patrick Morrissey. Morrissey has been outspoken about his extremist views that align with far-right ideology in Britain, he has been characterized as xenophobic and racist as he has claimed that “the gates of England are flooded [by foreigners].” His statement from 2010 has been reviewed under the cancel culture lens, with heavy media scrutiny of Morrissey and widespread boycotts of his music. Regardless of the reprehensibility of his statements, the artist is merely expressing his political ideas. One could argue that he is just acting upon his right to freedom of speech. Moreover, it is interesting how former claims and “problematic” behaviour resurfaces for the sole purpose of scrutiny. Overall, critics of retrospective cancel culture argue that it risks erasing the nuances of history and failing to acknowledge the context of past eras and diverse opinions. They suggest that judging figures solely based on contemporary values may oversimplify complex historical narratives and hinder the understanding of societal progress and transformation over time. Specifically, in the case of The Smiths singer, the question of whether cancel culture has been efficient, rematerialized. Is Morrissey’s cancellation stopping fans from listening to The Smiths? This brings about another debate known as separating the art from the artist dilemma.

Cancel culture has brought the longstanding debate surrounding the separation of art from the artist into sharper focus, a phenomenon exemplified by the intense scrutiny directed at acclaimed author J.K. Rowling. Widely revered for her monumental contributions to literature, particularly through the globally cherished Harry Potter series, Rowling faced substantial backlash due to her contentious statements on matters related to gender identity and transgender rights. This provoked an intricate discussion concerning the balance between celebrating her literary achievements and critiquing her personal convictions – presenting a challenge to the concept of separating the artist from their art. While her literary works continue to resonate deeply with audiences worldwide, her vocal stance on issues related to transgender rights prompted a reevaluation of her public persona and creative legacy. As cancel culture advocates for the decisive reprimand of objectionable behavior, supporters of Rowling's work grappled with reconciling their appreciation for her literary contributions with their disapproval of her personal views. In the face of dynamic sociocultural shifts, her case reflects the ongoing challenges of navigating the relation of an artist's creations and their personal beliefs. The debate revolving around J.K. Rowling underscores the inherent tension between the desire to preserve an artist's creative legacy and the need to hold them accountable for their personal beliefs and actions

Cancel culture, initially an emblem of accountability, has transformed into a global instrument for justice in the online sphere. Advocates contend that it represents a form of social justice, imposing repercussions for those who have caused harm, especially to marginalized communities. However, it has drawn censure for descending into mass media bullying, hindering free speech, and lacking a structured system of justice.The question of the legitimacy of online "justice enforcers" becomes inevitable. Impersonal criticisms often fuel online attacks, legitimizing verbal violence and leading to cancellations. This prevalent culture of "cancelling" frequently falls short of delivering online justice, prompting reflection on the boundaries of free speech and the application of democratic principles in the digital sphere.