Cancel Culture

We begin from a principle we fully support: freedom of association. Individuals and organizations must always retain the right to associate—or disassociate—with whomever they choose. This includes employers firing employees, customers boycotting businesses, and friends cutting ties. Association is only meaningful when it can be ended voluntarily.

But when many people disassociate simultaneously and vocally, we encounter a phenomenon popularly called cancel culture. The ethical question is whether cancel culture is merely the aggregate effect of free association, or whether it becomes something darker.

Tier 1: Pure Disassociation (Legitimate)

If I refuse to buy your book, or a company chooses to fire someone because they dislike their speech, that is pure disassociation. Even if thousands of people independently do the same, the principle remains intact. This is not censorship; it is simply people exercising their right not to be affiliated.

Examples:

• The Dixie Chicks (2003): Country fans dropped support after anti-Bush comments.

• J.K. Rowling (2019–): Some readers put down her books over gender politics.

• Chick-fil-A (2012): Customers boycotted after comments about same-sex marriage.

Each of these cases involved individuals or groups walking away without trying to prevent others from associating.

Tier 2: Coordinated Disassociation (Borderline)

When groups organize boycotts, petitions, or campaigns to distance themselves from a speaker, this is still a form of free association. The line begins to blur depending on tactics:

• Legitimate persuasion: "We believe this person’s views are repugnant, so we won’t support them. Join us if you agree."

• Mob coercion: "If you don’t join us in denouncing them, we will target you as well."

Here, it is important to clarify: disassociation itself is never coercion. Choosing to walk away, or even threatening to withdraw support, is simply the exercise of one’s freedom. It only becomes coercion when the withdrawal is paired with credible threats of harm beyond disassociation—for example, when activists threaten to smear reputations, harass employees, or fabricate attacks. That is no longer association; it is intimidation.

Examples:

• #DeleteUber (2017): A boycott that mixed voluntary exits with mob-style pressure to conform.

• James Gunn (2018): Disney fired him after petitions over old tweets; supporters feared defending him lest they be targeted too.

• Kevin Hart (2018): Pulled from hosting the Oscars after a campaign against past jokes, where the pressure extended beyond simple disassociation.

These show how coordinated pressure can still be free association — until intimidation of bystanders turns it into coercion.

Tier 3: Suppression by Proxy (Illegitimate)

Cancel culture crosses into censorship by proxy when it pressures third parties to cut ties under threat. This is no longer just individuals walking away; it is an attempt to make it impossible for anyone else to associate.

Examples:

• McCarthyism (1950s): Hollywood blacklists coerced studios into universal disassociation from alleged communists.

• Lenny Bruce (1960s): Clubs were pressured not to host him; law enforcement piled on to shut down his performances.

• Twitter/YouTube bans (modern era): Organized campaigns that aim to cut speakers off from all audiences, not just walk away themselves.

Here the shift is unmistakable: it’s not about walking away, it’s about making sure no one else can stay.

The Synthesis

• Freedom of association must remain sacrosanct: no law should prevent employers, customers, or individuals from ending relationships.

• Cancel culture is the pathological form that arises when disassociation mutates into coercion. The harm is not that people walk away, but that they attempt to prevent anyone else from listening, affiliating, or deciding differently.

Conclusion

Cancel culture is not an inevitable consequence of free association. It is the escalation from choosing to disassociate to enforcing disassociation on others. We defend the former absolutely; we reject the latter as an assault on both speech and listener autonomy.

In short: Disassociation is your right. But when you extend it to enforce disassociation on others, you’ve crossed from liberty into censorship, and from choice into coercion.