Is ‘cancel culture’ better understood as a mechanism for accountability or as a constraint on artistic freedom?
Yes
Cancel culture is a necessary and effective way to ensure accountability in industries where traditional consequences are routinely absent or ineffective. Artists and public figures possess enormous cultural influence. That, combined with freedom of speech, gives them the ability to share their own thoughts and views with wide audiences. While this can be used positively, it can also enable the spread of hate and discrimination. Public criticism gives audiences a collective means to push back against any harmful behaviour, language or representation.
Accountability does not always require legal punishment or an infringement on freedom of speech. Cancel culture is not censorship; it is a collective choice. Audiences who gave these figures their platform have the right to withdraw their support.
Due to the changing times we live in, cancel culture can be viewed as the most beneficial form of accountability we have, as it reflects evolving social values faster than legislation can be amended.
No
Cancel culture undermines artistic freedom by discouraging risk-taking, experimentation and dissenting viewpoints. When artists, writers and other creatives fear backlash, they often self-censor to avoid controversy, narrowing the range of ideas expressed in art.
Public condemnation is often rapid, context-free and disproportionate, leaving little room for the people involved to share their side of the story. Unlike formal accountability processes, cancel culture lacks consistency and due process, making consequences unpredictable.
Art has historically challenged social norms, and pressure to align with prevailing values can limit that role. From this perspective, cancel culture risks replacing open debate with moral conformity, while hindering all creative fields
