Isn't cancellation just censorship by a mob? If i understand my terms correctly (I very well might not), cancellation causes people to be deplatformed which seems a lot like censorship. I guess cancellation can be considered free speech, but that doesn't mean it's not censorship.
Cancellation and censorship mean a lot of different things in different contexts. For example, OJ Simpson has largely been cancelled. But it doesn't feel like censorship per se -- for example you can still purchase writing by him or find video of him. If he's not on Tic Tok or YouTube, I don't think they'd block him. Yet, I don't think Disney is going to make a movie starring him.
Cancellation is the consequences of speech. Period.
It is most certainly not censorship when you consider the context - something these debates regularly leave out. Some views are widely considered to be abhorrent or dangerous. People are free to believe vaccine misinformation or glorify extremism. Society does not have an obligation to listen.
The question under discussion is what those consequences should be. In some countries the consequence for certain kinds of speech is capital punishment by the State. Most Americans would be horrified if the US government did this. To be clear, the fact that this happens to be constitutionally protected is irrelevant because the question is what should be illegal not what is illegal.
> Some views are widely considered to be abhorrent or dangerous.
I also think pointing to “society” isn’t that useful since it’s a moving target. “Society” isn’t one thing. Things that are acceptable in one place are not in another.
In some places advocating for equality for LGBT people is considered an affront to society. Dangerous even. The question is, what should be the worst consequence of having unpopular viewpoints?
> Cancellation is the consequences of speech. Period.
This... isn't true though. It can be and often is, but it isn't just that. People accused of certain types of crimes, or accused of having done something racist/sexist privately are often cancelled or close to it, even without being convicted. And I completely understand where that impulse comes from too, as much as possible I think we should "listen and believe"... but that we should also maybe take that with a bit of "trust but verify" and not immediately have movements to deplatform people for things we didn't witness them do ourselves/have really solid evidence for
