• Investing
  • Stock
  • Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
Portfolio Performance Today
Economy

I Was a Victim of Cancel Culture. Don’t Perpetuate It.

by October 2, 2025
by October 2, 2025

Activists from the left have tried to “cancel” me multiple times. I lost an academic job opportunity despite the support of a large majority of the department and the dean because two self-described Marxists in the department threatened to “go to war” if I were given an offer (the search committee chair told me this!). An elected official tried at least twice to get me fired from different jobs by calling the Board of Trustees and the executive leadership of my employers. When that didn’t work, he called my wife’s employer and accused her of belonging to a militia.

Given these experiences, you might think I would cheer demands by some on the right to start “canceling the left.” Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr called for the suspension of late-night host Jimmy Kimmel after Kimmel’s false remarks about the killing of Charlie Kirk. Vice President JD Vance has said that those who celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death should lose their jobs, with Donald Trump, Jr. even deploying the excuse-phrase once used by the woke left — “Consequence Culture” — to describe the cancellations. Again echoing woke-left terminology, Attorney General Pam Bondi has claimed that “hate speech” is not protected by the First Amendment. Conservative gadfly Chris Rufo advocates a broader censorship campaign against the left: “The ‘shoe has been on the other foot’ for at least a hundred years. Turnabout is fair play. . . The only way to get a good equilibrium is an effective, strategic tit-for-tat.”

The whole controversy is yet another opportunity for the nationalist New Right to accuse the traditional right of timidity, of being too bound by norms of civility and adherence to the Constitution. In this case, they have a kernel of plausibility: if those who practiced cancel culture in the first instance never suffer any consequences for their overreach, what is their incentive not to do it again when they have the opportunity?

The fatal flaw in the pro-cancellation right’s position is its collectivization of the left. If cancellations are justified only in retaliation for previous cancellations, then they need to be directed toward those individuals who carried out cancellations, not the more than 100 million Americans who might identify as left-of-center. I haven’t heard even allegations that Jimmy Kimmel ever got anyone fired for his political views.

When Elon Musk took over Twitter, he fired some executives who were responsible for decisions to ban conservatives for their sincere expression of political beliefs. This is the only kind of “tit for tat” that makes sense. We can’t even call Musk’s actions “cancellations,” because the executives were fired not for their speech but for their actions that harmed users and undermined the platform.

How should we treat the expression of opinions we find abhorrent? John Stuart Mill got this question mostly right over 150 years ago in On Liberty. In that essay, Mill defended the freedom of the individual to think, speak, and act freely so long as he causes no definite harm to any other person. “The only freedom which deserves the name,” Mill wrote, “is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.”

Importantly, Mill understood that “the moral coercion of public opinion” could be as harmful as government-imposed punishments and censorship. Mill opposed the “cancel culture” of his day, though then it had less to do with firing people for their political views and more to do with shunning people for their views and lifestyles.

Mill’s essay isn’t perfect — he gets very mixed up about what “coercion” means and which types of voluntary acts are exempt from social control — but he gives us strong reasons to think that both public censorship and private punishment of the expression of viewpoints will have harmful consequences. First, canceling people for their views will prevent us from hearing views that may be true, or at least that may contain part of the truth. Second, preventing people from speaking falsehoods will prevent us from acquiring a lively understanding of the truth and will make people more susceptible to falling into error. The way left-wing cancel culture caused some young people, especially young men, to experiment with “forbidden” far-right ideologies is an example of this. If the right starts canceling the left across the board, then it may well revive the left’s interest in free speech, but it will also make the left “cool” again. (See: the 1950s and 1960s.)

Is it ever appropriate to fire someone for speech? Of course. If you go into the public square and shout negative things about your employer, it’s reasonable for your employer to fire you. If your speech gives us good reason to think you will do your job poorly, then it is reasonable to fire you. Churches shouldn’t be required to employ preachers who profess atheism, for example. For this same reason, it seems reasonable to fire schoolteachers for expressing support for the Charlie Kirk killing. Many kids, especially high schoolers, admire Kirk and share his views. We don’t want them to have to be taught by someone who wants them dead.

Universities are different from K-12 institutions in this respect. Universities are supposed to be engaged in a no-holds-barred search for truth. If that’s the goal, they need to follow the same standard of free speech that the government is supposed to follow. Members of the university community are all adults and should be expected to “put on their big-boy pants” and deal with whatever speech they may encounter on campus. College students making uninformed TikTok videos shouldn’t be punished for the views they express, no matter how odious. Neither should professors.

If private institutions should not generally “cancel” expressions of political opinion they disagree with, then so much more should the government stay out of it. Furthermore, if private institutions do err and “cancel” speech they shouldn’t, the government should also stay out of those decisions. Society benefits from a rough-and-tumble process of debate and learning from a multiplicity of examples. If a big company starts canceling conservatives, then conservatives’ appropriate response is to boycott them, not run to the government for help. Then other companies will learn what risks they run by acting unreasonably against a political out-group. 

In fact, I’d say that’s just what happened over the last half-decade; as a result, businesses are now much more likely to stay out of political controversies.

Let’s trust the marketplace of ideas and stop trying to punish people for their thoughts, only for their harmful actions against others.

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail

previous post
OpenAI valuation hits $500 billion as employees sell $6.6 billion in shares
next post
Mission Creep: The Fed’s Foray Into State and Local Debt

Related Posts

‘Stay tuned’: Jeffries repeatedly dodges Mamdani endorsement as...

October 25, 2025

Rubio slams UNRWA as a ‘subsidiary of Hamas,’...

October 25, 2025

Rubio ditches costly conference travel, slashes nearly $100M...

October 25, 2025

Trump and Kim Jong Un should make ‘bold...

October 25, 2025

Johnson shuts down House to pressure Schumer as...

October 25, 2025

Trump admin accuses Hillary Clinton of stealing White...

October 25, 2025

White House responds to reports Trump named new...

October 25, 2025

Cruz ‘cannot support’ Trump’s Kuwait ambassador pick over...

October 25, 2025

Schumer accuses Trump of ‘skipping town’ during shutdown...

October 25, 2025

Trump to jet off to Asia as North...

October 25, 2025

Stay updated with the latest news, exclusive offers, and special promotions. Sign up now and be the first to know! As a member, you'll receive curated content, insider tips, and invitations to exclusive events. Don't miss out on being part of something special.

By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

Recent Posts

  • Europe bulletin: Zelensky calls for more weapons, Russia warns against EU sanctions

    October 25, 2025
  • Nvidia stock edges higher amid semiconductor sector rally and AI boom

    October 25, 2025
  • AMD stock climbs 7%, breaching $400B market cap amid chip sector rally

    October 25, 2025
  • US digest: Jeffries endorses Mamdani, Ford’s stock surge, US sanctions Colombian president

    October 25, 2025
  • Trump seeks Asia mineral deals to ramp up pressure on China’s Xi: report

    October 25, 2025
  • Lucy Powell elected deputy leader of the UK’s Labour Party

    October 25, 2025

Editors’ Picks

  • 1

    Meta executives eligible for 200% salary bonus under new pay structure

    February 21, 2025
  • 2

    Pop Mart reports 188% profit surge, plans aggressive global expansion

    March 26, 2025
  • 3

    New FBI leader Kash Patel tapped to run ATF as acting director

    February 23, 2025
  • 4

    Walmart earnings preview: What to expect before Thursday’s opening bell

    February 20, 2025
  • 5

    Cramer reveals a sub-sector of technology that can withstand Trump tariffs

    March 1, 2025
  • 6

    Anthropic’s newly released Claude 3.7 Sonnet can ‘think’ as long as the user wants before giving an answer

    February 25, 2025
  • 7

    Nvidia’s investment in SoundHound wasn’t all that significant after all

    March 1, 2025

Categories

  • Economy (3,000)
  • Editor's Pick (295)
  • Investing (185)
  • Stock (2,048)
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions

Copyright © 2025 Portfolioperformancetoday.com All Rights Reserved.

Portfolio Performance Today
  • Investing
  • Stock
  • Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
Portfolio Performance Today
  • Investing
  • Stock
  • Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
Copyright © 2025 Portfolioperformancetoday.com All Rights Reserved.

Read alsox

Jim Jordan pressed to subpoena climate group...

September 24, 2025

Durbin obstruction threat chills Senate as Trump...

June 5, 2025

The Real Debt Threat: Government Spending, Not...

July 16, 2025