Jimmy Kimmel lost his job, and he’s not the only one. This is not a free speech issue. Government cannot take a role in any form or fashion to prevent Americans from voicing their opinion. But our 1st Amendment does not shield citizens from facing consequences from private institutions such as businesses or schools.
But the debate today is not really about free speech. The question at hand is whether or not the right is engaging in “cancel culture.” In a recent video, I argued that the answer is “no.” There’s a difference between cancel culture and consequence culture, which I detailed in a recent short video.
Cancel culture. Consequence culture. These two phrases spark heated arguments and strong feelings across our country. The debate often gets clouded by emotion and noise, making it hard to separate fair criticism from actual attempts to silence others. With tragedy and controversy in the headlines, it’s more important than ever to understand these ideas and not get them twisted. This breakdown will help clear the air.
Cancel culture means trying to shut down, banish, or exclude people simply because you disagree with their views or the way they think. It isn’t about stopping hate or evil acts—it’s about stopping speech or participation when the real “offense” is an unpopular opinion.
Consequence culture deals with something deeper. It’s about facing the results of truly harmful, ugly behavior. If someone says or does something that crosses a clear moral line, others respond. When you act like this, you aren’t being “canceled” for your beliefs. You’re facing consequences for your actions.
Arguments blow up all over social media about what counts as cancel culture. Sometimes strong feelings blur the lines. People see someone called out for a cruel comment and instantly call it cancel culture, mixing up the facts. The difference comes down to why the person is facing backlash—are they being targeted for an opinion, or for being truly cruel?