“Cancel culture is a national plague, and the only people it helps are bullies who use powerful platforms to defame and crush those they dislike, often with the help of major multinational corporations." - Tucker Carlson
In recent years a phenomenon arose from the left that is now commonly called “cancel culture”, where people right of center who offend or step out of line have been subject to a modern sort of public shaming and shunning. Targets have found themselves ostracized, removed from internet platforms such as social media or crowd sourced fundraising, uninvited to speak in public, and even had their bank accounts canceled, just for voicing an opinion that deviates from the accepted vocal minority narrative.
The term has become a polarizing topic. While proponents view it as a tool for holding powerful people accountable and allegedly promoting social justice, critics have argued it can lead to unfair judgments, mob mentality, and disproportionate punishment without due process.
The right has now reframed and rebranded the cancel culture concept referring to it now as “consequence culture”, emphasizing accountability over punishment. An extension of the FAFO memetic.
Proponents argue it fosters responsibility and encourages better behavior by holding people accountable in a fair and proportionate way, with the focus on consequences as a means of promoting social change or enforcing norms, while critics say it still risks mob-driven overreach and stifling free expression.
In the wake of the Charlie Kirk political assassination many on the left took to social media to celebrate, with some condoning political violence and even calling for more executions. The blowback was swift as keyboard warriors quickly snapped screen shots of the disturbing comments and started sending them to the agitators’ employers. The mob cheered as people lost jobs, including teachers, professors, journalists, pilots, nurses, and even Office Depot staff who refused to print Charlie Kirk vigil posters.
Free speech groups like FIRE decried it as "woke right" intimidation, noting it expanded to mere criticism or insufficient mourning. Left-leaning media (CNN, NBC) labeled it hypocritical right-wing cancel culture, while conservative social media commentators such as Mario Nawfal argued it deters an "assassination culture" Kirk himself warned of pre-death. By October, X posts highlighted irony, with users noting that right-wing "edgy banter" faced less scrutiny than posts about Kirk.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that speech inciting violence is not protected under the 1st Amendment, but the threshold is narrow and specific. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court established a three-part test: speech loses protection if it (1) is intended to incite imminent lawless action, (2) is likely to produce such action, and (3) the speaker has a specific intent to cause that action. This overturned earlier "clear and present danger" standards from cases like Schenck v. United States (1919), focusing on intent and immediacy rather than vague danger. Later, Hess v. Indiana (1973) clarified that speech must incite "imminent" lawlessness, not just general advocacy of violence. Texas v. Johnson (1989) and Cohen v. California (1971) further protected provocative speech, such as flag burning and offensive slogans, unless it meets Brandenburg’s strict criteria.
While posts celebrating violence, like those about Kirk’s assassination, may not meet this legal threshold unless they explicitly call for immediate illegal acts with clear intent, society has drawn its own line and retribution by a jury of online peers has taken the place of a trial in the digital age where words have consequences in a culture of political tribalism.