I didn’t follow Charlie Kirk closely, but he was by all accounts a decent man, a loving father and a devoted husband. On top of that, he championed free speech and debate. His entire career involved going around the country and hashing out the issues of the day with left-wing college students. He even organised debates between different factions on the right. So kudos to him—and sincere condolences to his family.
Regrettably, leftists across America have been celebrating or making light of his death, particularly on social media. And this, in turn, has spurred right-wingers to track down those individuals’ employers and get them fired. The right-wingers involved in this campaign include not only social media activists, but also senators and congressmen. Even the Vice President, J.D. Vance, told supporters that “when you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder” you should “call their employer”.
This morning, the campaign bagged its most high-profile target yet, with talk-show host Jimmy Kimmel being taken off air for some fairly innocuous comments about the “MAGA gang”. (Kimmel had already condemned the killing and offered his condolences to Kirk’s family.) His suspension came after explicit threats from Trump’s FCC chairman that there are “actions we can take on licensed broadcasters”.
Such threats are noteworthy given that one of the very first executive orders Trump signed upon returning to office aimed at “restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship”. What is threatening licensed broadcasters if not federal censorship? (The ‘F’ in ‘FCC’ stands for ‘Federal’, by the way.)
Meanwhile, we have Trump’s Attorney General, Pam Bondi, warning that his administration “will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.” Of course, Bondi had to quickly walk back her comments due to a minor legal technicality—that any such targeting would be in blatant violation of the US Constitution. I guess knowing what the Constitution says is too much to ask from the Attorney General.
Those engaged in the campaign of cancel culture have offered two main justifications for their antics. The first is that the Left was doing this for years and is now getting a taste of their own medicine. But this simply isn’t convincing.
To begin with, the Left is not a single actor who did something wrong and should be punished for it. If a specific individual got someone cancelled over an ‘offensive’ comment and then made an ‘offensive’ comment themself, getting that individual cancelled might represent justice. However, we are talking about the cancellation of people who merely share opinions with the people who were getting others cancelled a few years ago. (Kimmel, for example, has criticised cancel culture.)
What’s more, there’s an important principle you might have learned about in primary school, which is that two wrongs don’t make a right. If left-wing activists set off a bomb, should right-wing activists do the same? Obviously not. Either cancel culture is bad, in which case we shouldn’t engage in it, or it’s good, in which case right-wingers have been consistently wrong for the past decade. (Hint: it is bad.)
Finally, getting revenge on ‘the Left’ by engaging in cancel culture seems likely to reinforce the narrative that right-wingers never really cared about free speech and were just invoking the principle opportunistically. As a consequence, it seems likely to reinvigorate the Left’s own censorious tendencies. ‘See, they don’t care, so why should we stop getting people fired for racism and transphobia?’ is a powerful argument.
The second justification right-wing campaigners have offered is that, yes, cancel culture is bad but this isn’t cancel culture—because reasons.
Again, I’m not convinced. Different people find different things offensive and there is no objective definition of ‘offensive’ speech. Yes, publicly celebrating someone’s death is a pretty deranged thing to do, but so is going out of your way to get someone fired over something they said.
This is not to say that all of the cancellations we’ve heard about were unjustified. At least one teacher allegedly showed a video of the assassination to an elementary school class and was subsequently suspended by the school. Which seems entirely reasonable: snuff films are not appropriate for children. But generally speaking, people should be free to express opinions—even distasteful ones—without fear of losing their jobs.
The Right has spent much of the last decade railing against cancel culture, and was arguably winning the debate. As recently as February, Vance rightly lectured European leaders over their dismal record on free speech. It is a mistake to abandon that position now.
Noah Carl is the Editor of Aporia Magazine.
This piece was first published in The Daily Sceptic, and is reproduced by kind permission.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee or sharing this piece with your friends – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
Rather sick (and bored) now with all this focus on the USA. We have enough problems here in the UK to be wasting our angst on a foreign country, it’s merely a distraction from the attack of the uniparty on its own paymaster citizens here – digital identity cards anyone?
Nathaniel,
I sympathise with your point, I really do. But just think: if I were to publicly share my opinions about some of the people who have been unjustly imprisoned here in the UK for either praying in silence or protesting against the migrant crisis, I’d be risking my own freedom. So, I’m only too happy to focus on the USA for a bit longer – once I hit my next decade, that might change since I may not have quite so long to languish in prison!
Well, from my intermittent following of this latest round of cancel culture, I’ve assumed that much of the rhetoric of those “cancelled” would be categorised here in the UK as “inciting to violence” or “hate speech”. And so, what’s sauce for the goose etc… If the left want to keep playing this silly game, it’s not too surprising that the right want some fun, as well.
However, I’m surprised that the writer of the above article has not taken into account the years of torment to which Donald Trump has been subjected by the evil-doers on the left, with fake allegations/court cases thrown at him at every turn, and corrupt judges making his life a misery, with everyone who supported Trump being cancelled or (in this most recent horrific case) killed. Should not there be some kind of consequences for those who were determined to destroy the President’s life (and the lives of is family and friends) out of hatred for their political (and religious/moral) beliefs? Or should those who have been victims of cancel culture simply turn the other cheek? I’m not sure myself what would be the best answer. I hope others will educate me on this – should they turn the other cheek or retaliate in some way, perhaps short of “an eye for an eye”.
Obviously, the “cancel culture” is a nonsense but, for the record, Kimmel’s ratings were dismal and apparently he was facing the chop anyway – his nasty comments about Charlie Kirk were, as I understand it (perhaps wrongly) just the final nail…
Patricia, agree totally not forgetting of course the goal of all that egregious behaviour was to subvert the opinions of the majority who actually voted for Trump. Not unlike the post Brexit shenanigans.
John,
“I agree [with you]…” My favourite words in the entire blogosphere!
And yes, the hatred of Trump (and those who voted for him), drove those ridiculous court cases and commentaries about “saving democracy” (by – irony of ironies – refusing to allow the choice of the majority of the people to win through to the White House.)
It is, as you rightly say, reminiscent of the post-Brexit shenanigans where they tried just about every trick in the book to prevent Brexit taking effect – short of taking Boris to criminal court!
Nathaniel makes a good point about focusing our attention on matters closer to home. But to address the tenet of the article I would say that liberal left will always use the curtailment of free speech and cancel culture/censorship to further their political agenda. We must not go down that road to restore free speech to rude health. Just one simple thing we all can do to further free speech is stop paying a TV licence and commit to never buying or subscribing to a MSM product.
There’s a difference between (cancelling) firing people for controversial opinions on topical issues like the trans or climate debates – and (cancelling) firing people who celebrate or equivocate political assassinations. Such people shouldn’t hold high trust positions in the public sector, at least.
Except that, Marc, the “controversial” opinions that get people fired or cancelled on issues like trans, are not at all controversial. The idea that men can become women and vice versa is scientifically and medically impossible. Since Adam & Eve, it was understood that there were men and women, born as such and remaining as such until the Grim Reaper calls. Yet to say that these days is considered controversial. As for the climate “emergency” – my views on that would, indeed, land me in trouble, so suffice to say that I believe what my weather app tells me for the next few hours and beyond that, well… I used to be very indecisive – now I’m not so sure…