The act of publicly shaming someone is not new. It has existed as long as people have shared opinions and developed collective thought, and it can vary in its severity and impact depending on the level of fear involved and the influence of stereotypes. In the digital age, it is easier than ever to pass judgement. While some view cancel culture as a way to hold others accountable for their actions or to regulate a shift in social acceptance and inclusivity, others consider it an attack on controversial opinions that don’t align with societal norms. Regardless of what definition you subscribe to, there is no denying that in an increasingly online world, it is everywhere and no one is off limits.  

In the world of media, “canceling” someone is a public cultural boycott against an individual or institution for actions and statements considered offensive and/or unacceptable. While canceling usually applies to celebrity figures—like J.K Rowling, Jeffree Star, Ellen DeGeneres and recently Chris Pratt—, the practice has also entered into the world of politics. 

According to an NPR article, the cancel culture debate has become overstretched in politics to defend those with controversial views, like Marjorie Taylor Greene, the conservative representative of Georgia who has faced controversy and calls to be canceled as a result of her support of QAnon, her belief that some mass shootings have been staged and other conspiracy theories she has promoted. As reported by NPR, she has called the claims for her to be censured as an attack  by the “fake news media” and “DC Swamp” because she is an outsider with differing views. While cancel culture is usually thought of as occurring across party lines, in the case of Greene, the party is divided. While some Republicans like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have criticized her, others, such as Rep. Jim Jordan, have defended her.

“I think that the overarching narrative here is that those social injustices have gone unaccounted for so long that cancel culture is a reaction to that lack of accountability,” said Shaylynn Lesinski, a media studies instructor at CU Boulder. 

While some feel that cancel culture is a faster, more effective method to hold people accountable for their actions, one of the biggest oppositions to how cancel culture works is the belief that the fear of being canceled can stifle differing opinions and limit constructive conversation, as was the claim in the case of Bari Weiss a former New York Times opinion writer. 

Weiss was brought to the New York Times in 2017 from the Wall Street Journal in an attempt to show the countless perspectives of conservatism and liberalism. Weiss’s social media posts and writings were criticized both internally and externally. Her article on the intellectual dark web as well her critique of college protest movements, which she cited a hoax Twitter account in, came under heavy fire. As her work garnered criticism on Twitter, she also reported being openly bullied through the company’s Slack message channels, behavior that was later criticized by others within the company. 

On July 13, 2020 Weiss resigned and published her resignation letter online. In her resignation letter, Weiss stated: “Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions.”

In response to the claims of a hostile work environment, Eileen Murphy, a New York Times spokeswoman, stated that the company has a commitment to fostering an environment where mutual respect is required of all.

With platforms such as Twitter and Instagram decreasing the barriers between those who produce content and those who consume it the idea of celebrities, or those in positions of power, being untouchable went away. These new, interactive platforms create the opportunity for anyone to share a story and garner popularity, blurring the line between public and private spheres as media users can provide an immediate reaction and opinion to essentially everything.  

With the accessibility to share your thoughts and opinions publicly also comes the ability to judge and critique not only others, but also societal norms or expectations. Through such, public voices can gain more influence and create an impact, such as through the Kavanaugh trail and the #MeToo movement.

While some situations of cancelling a person seem more obvious than others–especially when it is in response to someone committing a crime–there are other instances that are more nuanced than they initially appear. According to Lesinski,  it is important that people fight the urge to pass judgement before considering all the information. 

“The public is very quick to judgment and tend to have knee jerk reactions. And that doesn’t mean there isn’t a space for that, but there are instances where that rush to judgment is misguided and the stain and effect doesn’t go away and is rather damaging,” says Lesinski.

In the case of a professor at the University of Southern California, the rush to judgment placed the communications professor on leave for a misunderstanding. Professor Patton, a member of USC US-China Institute, was discussing filler words in different cultures and used the Chinese word “nèi ge,” meaning “that,” as an example. A massive backlash followed from students who accused the professor of using the N-word.

“We have to recognize while the institutions don’t function the way they should and are often much too slow and don’t produce justice, they were generated because we need an institutional way to hold people accountable,” says Lesinski, describing the value that thorough investigation and research can offer when it comes to considering the consequences of a person’s actions. 

While acknowledging there is danger in the fast reactions the internet fosters, it is worth noting that public outrage, or canceling, can be effective when used correctly.

The #MeToo movement changed how sexual assault and harassment is discussed, leading to a broad cultural change that is still underway. The ability to publicly criticize elite individuals with high levels of power, such as film producer Harvey Weinstein in 2017, gave a place for survivors and #MeToo supporters to unite. In this case, the act of canceling a person translated to holding them accountable for their actions and helped to generate a cultural conservation about accountability and the prevalence of sexual harassment and assault in society.

As technology becomes more widespread and capable of sharing and spreading information, it is easy to see new ideas, stories, facts, beliefs and information at a surface level in real-time; this prompts emotions and opinions on what an appropriate reaction–and occasionally what is a necessary, justified consequence–looks like. While sometimes productive, canceling someone based on limited information can also be permanently damaging and misleading; it is important we all find space to allow for personal research and verification of information first so that we can react accordingly.