The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees one’s freedom to express themselves without legal repercussion from the government. It is a simple enough notion, yet people across the country cannot seem to understand the implications of their individual freedoms. Yes, you can say whatever you want, and you can offend and lampoon whomever you want. The government will not send agents to your door to take you off to prison for your views. This freedom, however, will not protect you from the court of public opinion. This elusive and all-powerful court will smite you down from whatever high horse you have placed yourself on quicker than you can say “God damn you, cancel culture.”

The topic at hand is this ill-understood ‘cancel culture.’ Does it exist? Yes. Is it a good thing? It depends on whether or not you value accountability. Does a celebrity’s homophobic tweet from 2011 resurfacing make you question their professionalism and their future employment? Is their apology reactive and performative? Of course it is; but do they deserve to have their career ruined for something they did so long ago? It is tricky and very contextual, and there is no end-all be-all formula for resolving situations like these. As always, the court of public opinion will find its way to deal with the situation, accordingly or not. As we have seen time and time again, people avoid accountability for things far worse than a bigoted message. The question at hand, then, seems to be whether or not “cancel culture” is being applied fairly. Additionally, will it ever be respected as a last resort for justice when the judiciary system fails?

For example, take Donald Trump. What is there to say about him that has not been said already? Well, a lot, considering we will hear about him until the day he utters his last “China.” If we hone in on his banning from Twitter specifically, we can see every facet of the ‘cancel culture’ machine at play. There are his loyal followers, who to this day will claim that we are headed into a communist autocracy for the complete loss of free speech on display. There are his critics, who argue that Twitter as a private company can ban whoever they want so long as there is reasonable cause in their terms of use. Then there are the centrists, who in my experience say that they disagree with what Trump says, but still think he should have a platform; I will not argue with them, because I believe the argument will go nowhere. Let us analyze this ugly beast of a situation. A person with as much influence as the President of the United States wields power with their words alone. Consider the January 6 Capitol riot, during which powerful and strategic rhetoric inspired hundreds of people to commit domestic terrorism for reasons the rioters do not fully understand. All people need is an emotional grievance and a target against which to commit atrocities. Twitter, where a person like the President can send persuasive messages hourly to millions of people, is a new prospective propaganda machine. A private company like Twitter then, within reason, should analyze the damage being done and deal with it accordingly. I will not discuss the dangerous direction this unspoken power held by powerful private companies is going in because that is a topic too big for me to unravel. The question I pose is this: do Twitter’s actions count as cancel culture? I would venture to say it is not. This is not a degradation of free speech because, the last time I checked, our individual freedoms are not wholly contingent on the Twitter terms of service.

Twitter’s ban of Trump is an example of a person being (partially) silenced by way of a decision by a private company. What about ordinary people like you and me? It might not be too crazy to claim that our power to hold powerful people accountable for their actions is one of the most crucial powers we have left. The President is not above the law, yet history has proven that people in that position and others of similar importance are not on the same playing field as you and me. Using freedom of speech to condemn people who openly proclaim messages of bigotry and sow the seeds of political and cultural polarization is imperative in the current climate. That being said, why is it that the people crying about this so-called cancel culture are almost always the wealthy and powerful? Consider the regular citizens parroting these messages about cancel culture; their ideas are not coming from their own critical analysis. These people are simply regurgitating what the latest angry and loud news reporter has claimed about cancel culture affecting their lives. They do not feel canceled by the government or president, but by their fellow neighbors. It is another form of powerful rhetoric used by pundits to misdirect the anger of the working class. The term ‘cancel culture’ was created by powerful individuals to cushion themselves from the backlash of their actions — ones that often should be condemned, but are not. At the end of the day, realizing where your beliefs come from and why you direct your anger towards certain people is the most important step to making a difference. No, an organization firing an individual for a horrible thing they did that has resurfaced due to public outcry is not ‘cancel culture’ — it is called accountability.