Cancel culture is horrible, but not censorship

Published 12:30 pm Thursday, October 9, 2025

I don't delve much into politics much anymore in this space.

Frankly, there's just too much noise, vitriol, and intransigence in politics these days. It usually feels like a waste of effort.

One of the things that really concerns me, though, is that people don't seem to understand (or wilfully misrepresent) the concepts they are throwing around.

Take, for example, free speech and censorship.

In Canada, Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees everyone the fundamental freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that other people have to listen to what you express, or accept your beliefs and opinions.

The Charter also applies to absolutely everybody, so if somebody disagrees with what you're expressing, they have the same right to express their opinion of your opinion.

I wish people would be more civil about it, but that is where we are in the social media-driven world of public discourse.

However, disagreement, even public disagreement, is not censorship. Censorship is the removal or suppression of speech, writing, artistic work, information or other forms of communication by a government or private institution.

Being ostracized or "cancelled" by the public, as it has become known in the modern context, is not censorship. 

Don't get me wrong, there is a litany of things wrong with cancel culture (on both sides of the political spectrum). It is the mobilization of mob mentality that amounts to bullying and public shaming without due process, and often leads to unjust consequences for persons on the wrong end of it.

It's horrible, but it's not censorship.

What Brendan Carr, chair of the American Federal Communications Commission, did to Jimmy Kimmel was tantamount to censorship — maybe, legally, not quite there, but suppression nonetheless.

In the United States, the First Amendment prevents Congress from making laws abridging the freedom of speech. So, a federal agency threatening a broadcaster's licences if they don't remove the offending free speech, smells a lot like censorship.

What ABC did, in capitulating to the bully, was definitely censorship.

And despite the cries of people who were glad to see Kimmel go, what the public did in getting ABC to reinstate him was not censorship.

By cancelling subscriptions to ABC's parent company Disney's streaming service, customers sent a financial message.

It's a little (OK, a lot) disturbing that these massively powerful corporations (or the people who lead them, perhaps) have no principles, because if ever there was a principle that should be at the top of the pile, it's free speech.