“We are in the cancel culture part of the tragedy cycle.”
This is a manifesto by Adam Goldstein, vice president of Strategic Programs at the Foundation, who writes on the organization’s website.
In this article on September 12, he documented nearly three dozen incidents as individuals who were approved, suspended or terminated were approved, suspended or terminated after the tragic killing of Charlie Kirk.
The vast majority of these incidents involve schools, colleges and universities. These examples show a pattern of public anger that has attracted the attention of public officials who call for sanctions, which are then subject to sanctions by another public entity.
As a classic example, Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn called for the discharge of Cumberland University professor on September 11, the day after Kirk’s death. On September 12, the professor was fired along with university staff.
Goldstein said it was a cycle of “cancel cultural machines.” Here’s it: A tragedy happened. Someone responded for what reason to celebrate the tragedy. The social media mob then demands that the person be fired, fired, or otherwise punished. ”
I appreciate Goldstein’s work in compiling, promoting and criticizing these actions, but I have an important disagreement. Most of these are not events of canceling culture.
This is a censorship system.
The question is not about the demands made by the “social media mob,” but about the public officials who follow and punish those views.
No matter what people think of people saying on social media, all of this content (provided not complying with the law) is a protected form of speech. Some may condemn the effect of the speech, but it is not a speech. Charlie Kirk’s watchlist is a record vector of threats and harassment targeting university faculty, but the website itself is an example of speeches, even if the website asks to fire a professor.
Unfortunately, there have been many years of public discussions on these issues, including Fire President Greg Lukianoff, who and his Put American thoughts in the roots Co-author Jonathan Haidt,,,,, A psychopathology called “securityism” was invented to legitimize student speech they considered “liberal”.
The narrative of “cancel culture” has the same effect, similar to censorship by categorizing controversial voices that people advocate for specific results (without the right to directly achieve these results). Whether one considers this phenomenon as a whole or a single example, it is never censorship.
U.S. senator calls for dismissal and then Complying with the university president is a direct review system.
These differences are very important at this moment, because it is clear that many government officials are interested in using their response to Kirk’s death as an excuse to crack down on comments they disapprove. The U.S. State Department “warned” immigrants not to “mock” Kirk’s death.
In a system where politicians are willing to use the weight of their offices to suppress objections, there is no longer a guarantee of legal remedies for illegal shooting. In Clemson, an employee was fired and removed from teaching duties after Clemson College Republicans surfaced. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, a Republican, made an opinion that the speech was related to the threat if Clemson fired an employee who claimed there was no evidence.
Other state lawmakers have apparently threatened the school’s state funding if officials do not take action.
Coercion, intimidation.
Representative Clay Higgins announced that he “will use every influence of Congress’ authority and large-scale technology platforms to demand the immediate ban on the lives of every post or commenter to devalue Charlie Kirk’s assassination.”
The same Clay Higgins sponsored the protection remarks of the Government Intervention Act of 2023, saying: “The American people have the right to speak their truth, and federal bureaucrats should not decide what is or is not true. We must continue to uphold the First Amendment because our founders intend to be our founders.”
In 2021, Blackburn called for the firing of a University of Cumberland professor, who proposed an anti-Connecticut cultural solution, claiming: “Abolishing culture is an obstacle to a market for free thought and remains with the maintenance and permanence of global democracy.”
It temptingly uses Blackburn and Higgins as hypocrites, but again this misunderstands the fundamental goals of larger political projects on the surface level. Blackburn and Higgins oppose “cancel culture” because they disagree with the potential consequences of the speech they agree with. They are now calling for sanctions on speech and speakers they disagree with. In both cases, they are using their power to promote speech they approve and discount speech they don’t approve.
The main difference is that the state’s tools are taking these sanctions, suspending and dismissing actions.
Like I said, censorship.
The only thing that changed is the roots of power and the presidential administration, which is very willing to use the tools of the state to intimidate and silence the opposition.
This is not cancel culture; it is authoritarianism.
Like I said, I thank Fire for the attention to these events, but the facts show that trying to rule on the limitations of freedom (including academic freedom) is ultimately through the lens of freedom of speech. If we are to protect our freedom, I think it is important to use at least the most accurate descriptive language.
Goldstein of Fire was wrong. We are not in the “cancel culture” section of the cycle.
We are in retaliation, censorship, coercion, authoritarianism in the cycle, and the wheels are transforming faster and faster.
