The ‘Cancel Culture’ trend: LGBTQ+, call for accountability or a social punishment?

Philippines is reportedly examining legislation to outlaw cancel culture as members of the conservative party feel threatened by pro LGBTQ+ online activists

What is cancel culture? Is it a threat to democratic societies?

Cancel culture refers to the practice of withdrawing support for people or organizations after they have been accused of questionable behavior. It’s a practice of groups on both left-wing and right-wing sides of the culture wars who have wanted to promote their own ideology and silence their opponents.

It refers to a ‘public battle’ between figures of opposite sites that often involves unfollowing, criticizing, or taking away support due to things they have said or done. 

Social media have become more like a battlefield, where things can escalate very quickly to widespread condemnation, with public figures losing work and brands being boycotted.

Cancel culture as a means of social justice?

To some, cancel culture has become a means of social justice and holding impactful figures to account that gives back power to the contesters who condemn social behavior that is not considered acceptable on their side.

Others, refer to cancel culture as a powerful yet unjust tool that is often ‘misused and misdirected’ and has become a form of mob rule. 

Cancel culture in the Philippines

The Philippines wants to put an end to this online phenomenon by introducing what legal experts say could potentially set an example to be followed: the world’s first law against cancel culture. 

Research from a team of communication and psychology experts from the De La Salle University (DLSU) highlighted what is the current situation among teenagers and young adults that are socially active online. 

They noted that the Philippines reached in 2022 89 million active social media users, which is more than 80 percent of the total population, almost 44 million of whom are people aged between 13 to 24 years.

‘Kuyog’ the Filipino concept referring to collective antagonism

The research showed how these movements can start in a private chat, but they can escalate to the point where the bashing or the canceling become public domain. ‘Kuyog’ is the Filipino concept referring to collective antagonism toward another or mobbing someone, and it is used in a form of tagging, which can then lead to escalated aggressions. 

According to another study from Southeast Asia research company Milieu Insight, a significant number of Filipinos (42%) say that the severity of getting canceled has become more serious than the controversy. 

In the recent Philippines national elections, people on social media canceled not only public figures but also their friends and family due to different political beliefs, showing that even common citizens who have little social power can be canceled.

Singapore is looking at ways to deal with cancel culture

Over the past year, Singapore’s been dealing with what was called a ‘brewing culture war’ between gay rights supporters and conservative Christians following the recent decriminalization of homosexuality in the city-state. Authorities said they were receiving feedback from conservative Christians who expressed fears about being canceled for their views by vocal groups online. 

In a statement to CNN, Minister K. Shanmugam said the impact of online cancel campaigns could be ‘far reaching and severe for victims’ since some have been unable to engage in reasonable public discourse out of fear of being attacked for their views. As a response, they may engage in self-censorship or else they could be made a target of canceled campaigns.

What would a cancel law look like, as told by Singapore lawyers to CNN

Eugene Tan, an Associate Law professor from the Singapore Management University (SMU) said there is currently no accepted definition of canceling, and defining the act of canceling is extremely complicated. Tan, who was once a member of the Singapore Parliament, expressed serious doubts about the meaning of a ‘canceled person’ or even the proof that an alleged canceled victim would have to bring to court. 

Facts that comply with court orders to a certain extent

Another thing to consider is that given how most cancer cases take place online on social media platforms, the new law would also have to be specially drafted in cooperation with Internet giants, lawyers in Singapore told CNN. 

Since the objects of controversy are published online, platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok could possibly be investigated or comply with court orders to a certain extent, including taking down posts and tweets deemed to be in infringement of the law. 

Traditional legal processes are not suitable for these kinds of scenarios on social platforms

Since the communication on social media happens very fast and reputations can be destroyed in a matter of days or even hours, it is clear that traditional legal processes are not suitable for these kinds of scenarios. 

Singapore already has several laws regulating the Internet, cyberbullying and doxing which include an ‘anti-fake news bill’ in which perpetrators are punishable with fines of up to 50,000 Singapore dollars ($38,000) or possible prison sentences of up to five years. 

Critics weigh in on potential limitations on freedom of speech and expression

While the government has refused to give an example of what cancel culture would look like, critics are expressing concerns about potential limitations on freedom of speech in Singapore. 

Phil Robertson, Deputy Director of Human Rights Watch, sees it as a tactic to intimidate individuals advocating for accountability and change. He argues that calling out and rebutting hateful or discriminatory remarks should be allowed in social discourse, and that state interference is unnecessary in a modern, democratic society. 

Roy Ngerng, a free speech advocate who had previously been sued for defamation by the Prime Minister, warns against the dangers of a law targeting cancel culture. He suggests that the fast pace of conversations on social media may have motivated the government to enact a new law to suppress culture and prevent discussions from progressing too quickly.

Cancelling began with the case of 2010’s anti-war and pro-gay voices

History has proof that cancel culture has been a long-standing feature especially in American culture. While in the 1990s and early 2000s, conservatives were very active in cancelling and silencing pro-gay and anti-war voices, the 2010s and onward saw a rise of a left-wing cancel culture movement, and the expression ‘cancel culture’ became much more prominent.  

Before 2016, the term cancel culture was rarely used. It experienced notable growth when the writer Shanita Hubbard used the phrase in a tweet (‘Let’s talk ‘cancel culture’) about the controversy surrounding the Olympic gymnast Gabby Douglas in November 2017, cancelled after she appeared to blame survivors of sexual assault. 

The rise of cancel culture: #MeToo movement and the Harvey Weinstein effect

The #MeToo movement and the awareness campaign against sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and rape culture, supported by women all over the world who shared their experiences of abuse, especially in the context of their workplace, made it clear that inappropriate and dangerous behavior were in violation of personal rights and consequences would follow.

The movement had gained viral resonance in 2017 when film producer Harvey Weinstein was called out publicly for the accusations of sexual misconduct and harassment.

Following criminal investigations made from complaints filed from six women in Los Angeles, London and New York, Weinstein was arrested with the charge of rape and other offenses. He is currently serving out a 23 years sentence in prison. 

The scandal had such an impact that gave rise to another trend, the Weinstein effect, as scores of women have come forward with allegations about other powerful men in entertainment and media.

Public debate is not new, it has just moved onto another platform

The practice of canceling culture is either seen as a tool to prevent challenging debate where it should be encouraged,  or a cleansing of the places or the people where new and better ideas are produced.

The consideration about cancel culture, whether it should be penalized or not, is receiving more and more mainstream attention, as the very concept of cancel culture itself has evolved into a broader and more serious conversation about how to hold public figures accountable for their behavior. 

The first argument that this practice does not threaten free speech comes from the idea of public debate, that is not new. The conversation should revolve around establishing new ethical and social norms and figuring out how to collectively respond when these are violated.

Cancel Culture

Cancel culture is a phrase contemporary to the late 2010s and early 2020s used to refer to a culture in which those who are deemed to have acted or spoken in an unacceptable manner are ostracized, boycotted or shunned

Martina Tondo