angrysoba
Philosophile
We can also see that any state sanctioned cancelling appears to be coming from the right - Texas laws etc…:
Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2
- Thread starter ahhell
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cancel culture
We can also see that any state sanctioned cancelling appears to be coming from the right - Texas laws etc…:
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Which what? My answer would be “people who make death threats”. What’s the other option?
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
18 U.S.C. § 115 hasn't been struck down on 1st Amendment grounds, so I think it's safe to say that death threats aren't protected speech in the United States.
It was a simple yes or no question.
Last edited:
dirtywick
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 10,308
I'm struggling to find the eerie parallels there also.
Anthony Comstock was a singular politician who created an organization to monitor public morality, created and changed legislation to reflect his morality, and later abused his power to leverage the legal system to punish people he found obscene.
Cancel culture, if one could even agree on a definition of what it really is, is many people from a variety of backgrounds under no real organization mostly publicly shaming others online for a variety and even at times contradictory reasons.
Anthony Comstock was a singular politician who created an organization to monitor public morality, created and changed legislation to reflect his morality, and later abused his power to leverage the legal system to punish people he found obscene.
Cancel culture, if one could even agree on a definition of what it really is, is many people from a variety of backgrounds under no real organization mostly publicly shaming others online for a variety and even at times contradictory reasons.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
And yet they have photos of people who have made these death threats, so presumably, they know wjo these people are. Why have they not been arrested and charged under 18 U.S.C. § 115 ?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
That's because there aren't any. The two situations are not remotely alike - not even superficially.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
I must have misread the question last night. Which aspect, specifically, are you referring to? I think creditable death threats should not be protected by free speech. I think euphemisms and analogies referring to the death of someone involved should be protected. I don’t think it is unreasonable for police to investigate the latter in order to determine the former if there is any ambiguity about which it is.
I also think none of this has to do with cancel culture. It’s death threats and harassment, which are already illegal and have a remedy. As I have said, cancel culture has existed forever in the intersection of free speech and capitalism. Arguably before that with public shaming and shunning. The only thing new here is the term applied to it and using it as an excuse to avoid accountability for one's unpopular words and actions.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
I gave an example of a law which criminalizes specific threats at the federal level, but it likely doesn't apply in this particular case. Look to the relevant state criminal code.
When the cancel mob rears up and calls for someone to be deplatformed or disemployed, is it uncommon for some of them to go further and make threats against physical safety? Seems fairly routine to me.
I agree, if they are clearly intended as performance rather than calls to action, e.g. the bizarre case of Kathy Griffin.
Last edited:
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Historically, it is very common. Pro-desegregation folks experienced all that and more. civil rights activists did, too. Anti-war activists. Neo-Nazis. Etc.
You guys are acting like this is anything new.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
The only thing new—AFAIK—is the speed at which (dis)information can travel through social networks.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
That's not really the case with Dave Chappelle or Donald Trump*, though.
* I mean, besides the disinformation that Trump himself propagates.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Agreed. Cancellations work best when the mob appears much larger than the countervailing fan base.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Because capitalism.
ETA: To expand, if the criticism exceeds a company's risk tolerance to their bottom line, they will remove the controversial material. If the material continues to drive profits, they will not remove the material. This is not cancel culture. This is, and always has been, the nature of capitalism. Earlier you mentioned (dis)information. Yes, there is some of that, but it, too, has always existed as either "marketing" or "public relations". The only difference with the speed of it is companies have a reduced time to react to changes in public opinion, thus forcing the decision to continue or cut material. But, it is all just ongoing capitalism.
Do you think those outraged by the first interracial kiss on TV between Kirk and Uhura weren't trying to get Star Trek cancelled?
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Agreed [emoji106]
Notice, for example, that the "Fire Kathleen Stock" movement explicitly called out student fees.
I'd hope we can agree that it was unethical for them to do do.
Last edited:
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
I am not familiar.
When has capitalism ever concerned itself with being ethical?I'd hope we can agree that it was unethical for them to do do.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Why on Earth would anyone feel constrained by capitalism when talking about ethics?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Who said we were talking about ethics? This thread is about cancel culture, i.e. the crossing point between capitalism and free speech.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
I did, when I affirmed that it was unethical to try to cancel folks like Roddenberry, Fontana, and Coon for depicting interracial romance on the small screen, around 20 minutes ago.
I created this thread to discuss the ethics of one particular (attempted) cancellation while it was just getting off the ground. While I'm happy to see the topic broadened, I'll not have you narrowing it so as to exclude talk of ethics.
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
So you would admit that there's nothing novel about "cancel culture"?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Well, that was not at all clear. You asked if it made sense, not if it was right or ethical. I did a quick search and the references are vanishingly small.
I would argue that it is the same as all free speech. Free speech, itself, is neither ethical nor unethical. It is the nature of the free speech that is either ethical or unethical. Likewise, criticism of free speech is neither ethical nor unethical, but the nature of criticism that is ethical or unethical.