Cancel Culture and Freedom of Speech: A Delicate Balance Cancel culture has become a controversial topic in recent years, especially in English-speaking countries.
Faglig kvalitetssikret av lærere og toppstudenter · Følger læreplanen (LK20) · Sist oppdatert 2026-10-03
Lately we have seen several public figures being cancelled* for something they have expressed that others have regarded as controversial.
Read the material.
Referring to the material below, reflect on whether cancel culture is a challenge to freedom of speech in English-speaking countries.
*Miriam-Webster definition of cancelling and cancel culture:
To withdraw one's support for (someone, such as a celebrity, or something, such as a company) publicly and especially on social media as a way of expressing disapproval and exerting social pressure.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Source: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights. Retrieved: 24.03.22
Quote 1:
“I agree that freedom of speech is important, but it must be freedom of speech with responsibility. And we must not lose the ability to listen to and accept the opinions of others. And indeed, I have to admit that I'm not opposed to the idea that the cancellation of many of the ideologies and personalities was, in most cases, long, long overdue.”
- Frances G. Flake, Social commentator
Quote 2:
“I do get a sense sometimes now among certain young people, and this is accelerated by social media, there is this sense sometimes of: ‘The way of me making change is to be as judgmental as possible about other people,’ and that’s enough. Like, if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right or used the wrong verb, then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself. […] That’s not activism. That’s not bringing about change. If all you’re doing is casting stones, you’re probably not going to get that far. That’s easy to do.”
- Barack Obama, former President of the USA
Source: New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/us/politics/obama-woke-cancel-culture.html. Retrieved: 09.03.22
Cancel Culture and Freedom of Speech: A Delicate Balance
Cancel culture has become a controversial topic in recent years, especially in English-speaking countries. From celebrities like J.K. Rowling to classic films like Dumbo, individuals and cultural products have faced public backlash for statements or representations that are seen as offensive. But is cancel culture a threat to freedom of speech—or is it a form of accountability?
According to Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression…” This includes the right to speak without censorship. In a democracy, people must be free to express controversial or unpopular opinions. At the same time, others have the right to react, criticize, or withdraw support. Cancel culture operates in this grey zone, where public opinion and social media create pressure that can sometimes resemble censorship.
Take the case of J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series. After she made comments that many considered transphobic, a large number of fans and public figures “cancelled” her, meaning they distanced themselves from her work or publicly criticized her. While Rowling has not been legally silenced, the backlash was intense and affected her public image. This shows how cancel culture can impact freedom of speech—not by law, but through social pressure. Some argue this creates a climate of fear, where people avoid speaking their minds.
However, Frances G. Flake, a social commentator, points out that “freedom of speech must come with responsibility”. In her view, many of those who have been “cancelled” are people who spread harmful ideologies, and holding them accountable is not censorship but necessary progress. She even argues that some forms of cancellation were “long overdue.” This perspective sees cancel culture not as a threat to freedom, but as a tool for justice and social change.
Former president Barack Obama offers a more balanced view. He criticizes the way cancel culture has become more about “casting stones” than real activism. As he says, calling someone out on social media doesn’t necessarily bring about real change. Obama warns that being overly judgmental, especially online, can make people feel morally superior without actually engaging in productive dialogue. His words highlight the difference between accountability and performative outrage.
The cartoon-like Illustration 1 (the man with Facebook glasses chasing “likes”) reinforces this criticism. It suggests that people are no longer thinking for themselves, but instead reacting based on trends and social validation. This can turn cancel culture into a popularity contest, rather than a meaningful discussion about ethics and values.
But cancel culture does not only affect individuals. Entire works of art are reevaluated. Disney’s Dumbo (1941) has been criticized for racial stereotypes, particularly in the portrayal of African American characters. Some argue that such content should be removed or labelled with warnings. Others believe that removing such works erases history and avoids teaching important lessons about past mistakes.
What becomes clear is that cancel culture is not a simple attack on freedom of speech. Rather, it reflects a tension between freedom and responsibility. In English-speaking democracies like the USA and UK, freedom of speech is protected by law, but cultural consequences—boycotts, criticism, and loss of support—are part of a free society as well.
The real danger comes when cancel culture shuts down conversation instead of encouraging it. If people are too afraid to speak, for fear of being “cancelled,” then society loses valuable perspectives, including controversial ones that can spark necessary debates. On the other hand, if people can say anything without consequences, harm and discrimination may go unchallenged.
In conclusion, cancel culture does pose some challenges to freedom of speech—but it is not entirely negative. When used thoughtfully, it can promote accountability and progress. When used blindly or aggressively, it can silence and divide. The key is to encourage open dialogue, listen to differing views, and apply both freedom and responsibility in equal measure.