(This is an example of an opinion piece. )
At a time where digital platforms have amplified our voices beyond the confines of physical spaces across the globe, the phenomenon of cancel culture has emerged as a significant force, shaping public discourse and impacting lives in profound and lasting ways. But what exactly is cancel culture, and how does it intersect with the principles of democratic societies and their legal frameworks?
Defining cancel culture
Cancel culture refers to the practice of withdrawing support for public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. It is a form of boycott or public shaming that has been empowered by social media networks, where groups of people collectively call out individuals or entities, leading to varying degrees of public backlash, from social ostracisation to professional consequences. This phenomenon reflects a broader cultural shift towards accountability in the widest sense, albeit through mechanisms outside traditional legal and institutional frameworks.
The act of cancelling, while uniformly applied, manifests starkly different consequences for corporations versus individuals. Corporations, with their vast resources, often weather the storm of cancellation through strategies such as rebranding, mergers, or leveraging their financial and legal muscle to mitigate negative impacts. Their capacity to absorb financial hits, combined with the public’s relatively short memory, allows many companies to emerge relatively unscathed or even strengthened in the long term. Is Barclays Bank still operating after the protests and cancellation because of their support for apartheid (1981 to 1986)? Are people still purchasing Apple products after a report that some of their suppliers use forced labour programmes (2020)?
Conversely, individuals subjected to cancel culture face far more dire repercussions. Without the protective buffer of corporate resources, individuals often experience irreparable damage to their reputations, careers, and personal lives. The digital footprint of their cancellation can linger indefinitely, affecting future opportunities and personal relationships. Moreover, the psychological toll on individuals—ranging from social isolation to mental health challenges—highlights a disparity in resilience between faceless entities and human beings. This dichotomy underscores a fundamental imbalance within the dynamics of cancel culture, raising questions about proportionality, redemption, and the capacity for change.
Consider the adaptive strategies of corporations facing public backlash. In efforts to mitigate the effects of cancellation, they may announce charitable donations, revise their manufacturing practices, or publicly recommit to social responsibility goals. Such gestures often resonate with consumers, allowing for a period of redemption and a gradual return of public favour. This process underscores a societal willingness to accept corporate transformation and reintegration into the market. Or perhaps the issue is too large to deal with when it comes to corporations?
In stark contrast, the pathway to redemption for individuals accused of wrongdoing—absent legal conviction—remains far more challenging. Unlike corporations, these individuals cannot easily reshape public perception through grand gestures or strategic changes. For those merely accused of unproven acts, the mark of public censure can be indelible, affecting their personal and professional lives long-term. This disparity not only highlights a societal inconsistency in the pursuit of justice but also raises important questions about our collective capacity for forgiveness and the conditions under which it is extended. The crucial distinction here is not between those rightfully held accountable by legal systems but rather individuals who find themselves condemned in the court of public opinion without proven guilt.
The preemptive judgment dilemma
The advent of cancel culture has introduced a complex dynamic into the democratic ethos, where the court of public opinion can often precede and influence the formal judicial process. This intersection poses a significant challenge: the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, a cornerstone of democratic legal systems, is at risk of being overshadowed by the swift and sometimes unforgiving judgments rendered by the public.
The impact on legal systems
Democratic societies are founded on legal systems that champion deliberation, fairness, and due process as core principles. These systems are guided, in part, by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which articulates the right to a fair trial and the right to privacy—fundamental human rights that underpin the integrity of legal proceedings and protect the individual against undue public scrutiny.
Yet, the instantaneous and often relentless nature of cancel culture poses a formidable challenge to these principles. When accusations circulate widely and rapidly on social media, they can prematurely shape public opinion, potentially influencing the outcomes of legal proceedings before they formally begin. This preemptive judgment does not merely affect the accused, whose right to a fair trial and privacy may be compromised, but also challenges the integrity of the legal process itself. The UN Declaration of Human Rights serves as a reminder of the values that legal systems in democratic societies are meant to uphold, emphasising the importance of protecting these rights even in the face of widespread public discourse and social media activism. By ensuring these rights are respected, we safeguard the foundation of justice and due process in the age of digital immediacy.
The imperative to protect the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, such as the right to a fair trial and the right to privacy, extends beyond the individual to the very fabric of society. These rights represent the cornerstone of equitable and just legal systems, ensuring we work towards ensuring (this is the goal) that every person is treated with fairness and dignity under the law. When these principles are compromised, even in an ad hoc manner through the court of public opinion, the ripple effects can be profound and far-reaching.
In jurisdictions where the law evolves through case law and precedent, undermining these rights can set dangerous precedents, potentially eroding legal protections for future generations. It threatens not only those immediately affected but also the integrity and reliability of the legal system at large. The right to a fair trial and the protection of privacy are not just abstract ideals but practical necessities that underpin the trust in our legal and societal institutions. Ensuring their unwavering protection is paramount to maintaining the rule of law, fostering a culture of justice, and preventing the erosion of hard won fundamental human rights that are not by any measure currently applied to everyone, but the goal is to get there. Without this safeguard, we risk descending into a society where justice is meted out based on public sentiment rather than legal merit, undermining the very principles democratic societies are built upon.
The quest for equitable justice
While acknowledging the imperfections and biases within legal systems, bypassing these systems through cancel culture does not inherently lead to more equitable outcomes. Instead, it underscores the need for reforming these institutions to make justice more accessible and fair for everyone. Systemic change, rather than anecdotal judgment, holds the promise of addressing the root causes of inequality and injustice.
For a deeper understanding of cancel culture’s implications, particularly in the context of social judgement and legal foundations, the article titled “Cancel Culture and Criminal Justice” by Steven Arrigg Koh (2022) is worth reading as it looks at the pros and cons of cancel culture and the history of social judgement, fear and shaming and provides valuable insights. It can be accessed through the following link: Link to article.
A constructive path forward
The dialogue surrounding cancel culture, democratic values, and legal principles invites a nuanced approach. Education on the significance of due process, coupled with concerted efforts to address systemic biases within legal systems, can contribute to a more informed public discourse and a more just society. Balancing the demand for social accountability with the safeguarding of legal integrity is essential in navigating the complexities of cancel culture in our contemporary landscape.
Conclusion
The intersection of cancel culture with the principles of democratic societies and their legal systems reveals deep-seated challenges and opportunities. As we engage with these issues, striving for a balance between accountability, fairness, and the evolution of equitable legal systems becomes paramount. By embracing both reform and education, we can work towards a society that respects the dignity and rights of all individuals, ensuring justice and fairness prevail.
King Advisory 