Since Cancel Culture and Perp Walk challenge the application of procedural rights in criminal law such as the presumption of innocence, they may ultimately constitute violations of human dignity. Damage to a person who has been struck off may be considered an unlawful form of punishment, and arguably the person has grounds for bringing an action in tort. However, when considering the nature of the tort to be identified and the causal factor of tort liability, problems may arise: who is liable for the damage suffered? Are all social media retarders responsible for the damage or only the first instigator? Are social media platforms or companies themselves responsible? These legal questions remain unanswered due to the novelty and controversy of cancel culture, but establishing tort liability could be the solution to the growing discourse and debates on the Internet and not what former US President Barack Obama called “stone-throwing” [20]. Above all, it is necessary for the courts to address this issue in order to reconcile the issue of human dignity and freedom with the regulation of public discourse. Yet there is a national debate about whether cancel culture actually exists, and if so, whether it is necessarily a bad thing. [16] Chan, Goldie. “How brands can legally manage cancel culture in 2020.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, July 10, 2020, www.forbes.com/sites/goldiechan/2020/07/10/how-brands-can-legally-handle-cancel-culture-in-2020/?sh=185580235d6a. Is a negative public reaction or reputational damage considered nullified or does it have to reach a certain level? Does it have to be permanent? Can you be fired by a few people? Should cancellation be an organized campaign, or can the term only apply to generalized and uncoordinated criticism? Can you fire someone who doesn`t have a public reputation? Can you cancel someone who is already dead? With the violation of procedural criminal law and the immediate punishment of an individual by ruins of reputation, the harmful effects of cancel culture can be assessed from the perspective of tort law. The purpose of tort liability is to shift the burden of loss onto the responsible parties and compensate deserving victims; This is a system created to repair an injury by repairing the damage.[12] It evaluates the existence of a person who is to blame, who has caused some harm to someone else. This error must be established by “the central idea [in tort]”. This responsibility must be based on socially inappropriate behaviour.
The common denominator of any crime is the idea of undue interference with the interests of others. [13]. Therefore, in the context of the culture of cancellation, it is important to determine whether cancellation is acceptable. As mentioned earlier, not only does it seem unreasonable to publish a person`s past errors in judgment just to harm them, but it could also be considered a violation of civil and political rights. The legal standard for reasonable people is to act with caution and judgment, as any reasonable person would, so as not to harm others. [14]. Thus, if it is socially unreasonable to intentionally cause harm to a person, the damage resulting from the act may constitute a tort [15]. Cancel culture can cause real personal suffering far beyond the digital realm, such as job loss, license revocation, threats or psychological distress.
In fact, job losses seem to be the most common damage of cancel culture, as companies try to protect themselves from negative reputation and publicity after public calls. Since business partners or employees can be the target of layoffs, social media companies could suffer brand damage in moments if they don`t act. The debate over the benefits of cancel culture oscillates between delicate balances between rights of expression and concerns about bullying. While the practice began in progressive circles, more recently it has also been used as a weapon by right-wing groups. Cancellation usually disappears with the worst consequences of all. “Cancellations often turn into intimidation. Like bullying, if you`ve been cancelled, it can make you feel marginalized, socially isolated, and alone. And research shows that loneliness is associated with higher levels of anxiety, depression and suicide rates.
“[xxix] Being annulled does all this without giving the opportunity to apologize or change one`s point of view. [xxx] In addition, the cancellation of one party often leads to resentment towards the annulment and causes additional disputes between all parties involved. [xxxi] After all, the viewer returns home with consequences that are arguably less serious than anyone else. These tense situations cause feelings of worry and doubt, as viewers fear the possibility that they will cancel the next ones. [xxxii] Strossen distinguished between healthy self-censorship and an unhealthy culture of appeal. Productive self-censorship, she says, “is part of a healthy discourse on campus and elsewhere. In a healthy and lively discourse, you seek to continue the dialogue, to exchange ideas and refine them, to refute and debate and perhaps to change your mind. The panel delved into what has become a virtual witch hunt to name and shame those with opinions that violate the culture of awakening and began discussing whether cancel culture is as important a thing as many seem to think. Continued respect for cancel culture in 2021 is an illegal anti-American act incompatible with American customs, principles or traditions.
(Source) Here, the principles are equated with the aforementioned laws, which make it illegal to fire employees at work. Cancel culture has always been part of our American history since our inception, whether we like it or not. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights explicitly prohibit cancel culture, as all women and men are created equally under the eyes of the law. Cancel culture is so widespread that it has ruined lives, damaged reputations and endangered the future of young people whose lives are just beginning. [20] Rueb, Emily S. and Derrick Bryson Taylor. Obama on the culture of calling: `This is not activism.` The New York Times, The New York Times, 31. October 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/us/politics/obama-woke-cancel-culture.html.
Like Perp Walk, cancel culture violates human dignity by censoring and punishing people who may have made errors in judgment. It is irrelevant to our purpose to determine whether the statements made that led to the deletion are moral or correct; Rather, it is important to recognize how cancel culture can have humiliating and punitive effects equivalent to shameful sanctions. On the one hand, the annulment of a person appears to violate criminal justice principles such as the presumption of innocence and the right to due process. In an age where statements are made online, it would be difficult to counter whether or not something was said by those who were cancelled. However, this does not preclude the right to a fair and impartial trial should a case go to court. At the end of the day, I believe that this is a social problem that we must correct together. Often, it may simply be that the interpretation was “off” and that the intention of the person who was annulled differed significantly from the interpretation. Also, if the person who is canceled apologizes, it is often not enough to please the cancellers.
Instead of advocating the cancellation of people, why not speak for unity instead of division? The solution to cancel culture has always remained in the foreground, but has recently been deliberately obscured by the noise of the cancel culture movement itself and by omissions in the press and by government officials trying to ingratiate themselves with them.