Free Speech, Cancelling and Liberal Democracy

so, a lot of pro free speech right wingers (think republicans, conservatives etc) have negative views about cancelling and cancel culture. this also leads them to believe pro cancel culture right wingers (think democrats, for example) are anti free speech, when they claim to be pro free speech, and that cancelling is an extension of free speech. i would like to add that im an anarchist, and do not support the ideas of either demographics being talked about. id also like to add that obviously, this doesnt apply to everyone within these demographics, and can apply to people in other political demographics too. 

free speech holds that any member of society should be able to say whatever they want, without legal consequences, and this is ONLY SAY. this doesnt mean actions, so just because someone can say something, doesnt mean they have the right to actually carry that action out, depending on the action. thats then subject to other laws. within the idea that anyone can say whatever they want, then cancelling problematic people, or anyone in that instance, has absolutely no issue within society at all if it upholds freedom of speech.

another point to add is that freedom of speech includes the freedom to criticise, and does not mean freedom from consequence. the entire point of free speech is that theres no legal repercussions, so the law cannot prosecute you. nowhere in freedom of speech does it say that you are infallible, so its obvious that criticism is going to be a major part of freedom of speech.

the issue here now is that many who believe in a free speech model, whilst criticising cancelling, whilst entertaining their free speech in doing so, are arguing for a model of LIMITED free speech. its limiting criticisms you can make about people and their actions, that “oh, they did a really bad thing, but they shouldnt feel the consequences of what theyve said, they have free speech.” anyone has the freedom to not engage with a certain person, their content etc, and anyone has the freedom to criticise them for things theyve done, and that SHOULD BE a fundamental part of free speech.

an issue on the other side is more of a problem within cancelling itself. as stated before, people have the freedom to cancel anyone for any reason, and these reasons can be criticised by others if they do so wish. however, many people who engage with cancelling CAN, but arent always, biased towards people they like. you can see this with musical artists a lot, that people may cancel marilyn manson for being EXTREMELY problematic, but not cancel ronnie radke for similar allegations. thats one example i have seen, albeit not often. however, it does highlight the existence of biased cancelling. as well, people who do use cancelling can definitely use it for political advantages when considering its biases, for example cancelling a politician for starting wars in the middle east when presidents of the other party did exactly the same thing. 

when we consider both these issues, its obvious that a true framework for the existence of cancelling in our model of free speech is quite poorly created, that theres not much agreement on what cancelling is, and that though its been practised for much longer, its existence as an idea separate from free speech has meant that it has been become much of a divide tactic; we have a group of people that use cancelling, but cancelling only works for those engaging in cancelling, as those who choose not to cancel keep engaging in that persons whatever they do. very much a “can you separate the art from the artist?” idea.

with its existence in our liberal democracy, it becomes a political tool for “progressive” parties; it becomes a way in which they can get impressionable people under the guise that “our political rivals are bad for doing this” when they also do very similar things. this can be seen in democrats in america, where many are in support of defunding the police, and that republicans are reactionary for supporting the existing funding of the police, but since the democrats have been in power, police funding has not gone down, with the exception of Milwaukee, which has only reached lower police funding due to grassroot organisations.

evidently, this idea of cancelling makes it better suited as a propaganda model than it does a free speech model; we have a long way to go before cancelling becomes less of a dividing tactic and more of a way for people to stay safe. in no way that im saying it isnt used for peoples safety currently; its amazing how communities have spoken out about so many problematic people, and allowed them to get, to an extent, social ramifications for their actions, though often not enough. theres great potential for cancelling to do even more good as weve seen. sadly, such an amazing idea has turned into a propaganda device. 

how could cancelling exist as an extension of free speech then, and not as a form of propaganda? well, obviously it depends on your beliefs; democrats may say that it isnt propaganda, republicans may say it inhibits free speech, so it makes us less free.

let me know what your thoughts are on this issue; is free speech better without cancelling? is cancelling fine as it is now? do we need to change free speech attitudes to accommodate for cancelling?