Is "Cancel Culture" a Threat to Free Speech? Many argue that cancel culture has gone too far, leading to the silencing of unpopular opinions or voices. But is it really a violation of free speech or a consequence of people holding others accountable?
Last Updated: 02.07.2025 10:55
Cancel culture isn’t “people block me online because I say gay people should not get married.” Cancel culture isn’t “Ciri is the next Witcher? The gaming industry gets woke! Men are canceled in video games!” Cancel culture isn’t comedians got some social backlash for saying racist things, not when they turn around and get another Netflix special.
Cancel culture is the “Parental Rights in Education Act” and “Stop W.O.K.E.” Act (yes, that’s a real law being passed in Florida in 2022) that left school libraries with empty bookshelves because every book has to be “evaluated” so the LGBTQ+ content and actual history of United States won’t “traumatize” our children.
Cancel culture is when Sinéad O'Connor criticized the Catholic Church for shielding child rapists, and the backlash promptly ended her musical career.
Cancel culture is when Dixie Chicks criticized Bush’s war effort and was promptly blacklisted by every country music station. It took them over a decade and a name change to come back.
Cancel culture is “Moms for Liberty” waging a war against LGBTQ+ inclusive books.
Cancel culture is the national archive preemptively removed some of the “darker history” of America (such as the civil rights movement or Japanese internment camps) in one of their most recent exhibitions to preemptively appease the new administration. → National Archives Museum Under Fire | Artnet News
Yes. Cancel Culture is a threat to Free Speech, but not the kind you imagined. Let me explain.
When speech from “in-groups” is criticized and challenged, you outcry “cancel culture.”
McCarthy-era persecution and silencing of artists, writers, and moviemakers is cancel culture.
On top of that, editors started to caution writers to tone down the LGBTQ+ content if they wanted to get traditionally published. They frame it as “pragmatism,” as in “I’m not here to argue right or wrong. I’m here to help you get published. Do you want to get traditionally published? Then don’t write queer characters.”
This is the moment I’m reminded of the Wilhoit’s Law:
Have you heard of the Hays Code - Wikipedia?
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
That’s what cancel culture looks like: you can’t write, read, or discuss <insert a group of marginalized people and their experiences> or you’ll never get published, your voice is never heard, even if you get published, your books will be removed and banned.
Hays Code is cancel culture.
Inbox: This will be a tough roster to crack - Green Bay Packers
I’m a writer. All of my stories feature minority and LGBTQ+ characters. I follow many BookTok creators on TikTok, editors, writers, readers… etc. Upon Trump’s election, “keep politics out of books” had gone viral. Many BookTok content creators made videos about how they don’t want politics in their books and that books are escapism. Except, of course, all books are political. All art is political. So when people say “I don’t want politics in my book/movie/video games,” what they are really saying “I don’t want books/movies/video games to challenge my existing political views.” After all, even the most conservative players have no problem with games in which ally soldiers fight against Nazis when anti-fascism is inherently political.
When speech from “out-groups” is limited and silenced, you call it “state law.”
The same applies to your interpretation of the cancel culture.