Member-only story
In the debate over cancel culture and the ethical and practical consequences of banishing people from the public square or costing them their jobs for offensive comments or behaviors, combatants tend to come down hard on one side or the other.
For some, the idea that people should be discarded, even for the most offensive actions — say, overtly racist or homophobic rants on social media or in a videotaped public meltdown — is inherently unjust.
Not only is the principle of free speech at issue, they insist, but so too is the notion that people deserve a chance to redeem their worst selves. Cancellation, they say, denies offenders the opportunity to do better, viewing them instead as one-dimensional caricatures of awfulness, whose actions deserve ruthless and permanent censure.
For others, those who perform acts of prejudice must be held accountable. Persons marginalized because of their identities face violence and discrimination, such that verbal attacks on such persons, whether on social media or at your local Trader Joe’s, can be a precursor to more of that.
Free speech, on this account, doesn’t mean consequence-free speech. Not socially sanctioning these types…
