LOGIN DASHBOARD

    Perspectives

    4 MIN READ

    The rhetoric of freedom of expression

    Shradha Khanal, January 7, 2022, Kathmandu

    The rhetoric of freedom of expression

      Share this article

    Cancel culture might embrace the postmodern ideas of freedom of expression and the plurality of truths but it also dismantles old truths to embrace new absolutes.

    (Pexels)

    As I sit down to write this article, the online sphere is more polarized than ever in the ongoing debate over whether or not 'cancel culture' itself should be canceled. Those in favor of cancel culture argue that in today’s digital space, it is a powerful tool of social justice that has dismantled age-old barriers by providing the people with a platform to demand accountability and raise their voices against discrimination and power imbalances. They argue that this ‘culture’ has encouraged people to actively seek out and include marginalized voices and embrace progressive ideas, enabling them to peel back the meta-narrative that has been fed to us for centuries by those in power.

    Those who are against cancel culture argue that while the culture embraces the postmodern ideals of reason, individual freedom, and the pluralism of truths, it ironically suffers from the paradox of deconstructing old values and embracing new absolutes. In ‘A Letter on Justice and Open Debate' – an open letter defending ‘free speech’ published on the Harper's Magazine website on July 7, 2020, where 153 signatories criticized what they called “illiberalism” – critics argued that cancel culture was affecting society’s tolerance for differing ideas and opinions by dissolving complex issues into blinding moral certainty.

    Cancel culture, which emerged in the West, has had a spillover effect in the rest of the world. Historically, cancel culture has its roots in the global human rights movement, which has long employed public boycotts and call-outs as a form of protest. Numerous movements around the world have helped center the experiences of the marginalized and powerless and affect changes in existing structural inequalities. 

    But things have changed. While boycotts and call-outs were once proactive, cancel culture today is reactive. It uses extreme language without a threshold on soft targets. Cancel culture today appears to be driven by the public sentiment of ‘guilty until proven innocent’.  

    Critics of cancel culture state that the culture promotes self-censorship and what they call “progressive orthodoxy”. It has narrowed the scope of academia to discuss ideas and has instead strengthened conformity as a tool to save oneself from any kind of scrutiny, they say. One of the biggest criticisms of cancel culture is that those who are being targeted are celebrities and public figures, who often have little to no effect on policymaking to bring about real changes. It appears that publicity, a lack of repercussions, revenue, and entertainment are fueling cancel culture.

    There is a certain threshold by which to measure whether any speech is acceptable or unacceptable. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides reasonable grounds for the restriction of freedom of expression. Any speech that hampers the reputation of a person; affects national security, public order, public health or morals; or incites hatred or violence can be restricted. This is applicable for social media as well, where platforms have the power to remove and limit restricted speech if they do not abide by community guidelines. 

    French philosopher Jean Baudrillard says that in the postmodern world, distorted reality can seem more real than the ‘real’ world. Selective facts that do not present the full picture can lead to deceptive inferences and erroneous conclusions. Owing to cancel culture, spared from any repercussions, people have become akin to little dictators behind their screens, creating personal likeness as standards and ignoring the existence of differing arguments. But human society evolves through debate and argumentation. Silencing differing ideas undermines the very foundation of an open society.  

    In an ideal situation, everyone would be conscious enough that their every sentence would be politically correct and they would only be willing to share filtered ideas that are palatable to today's society. But each individual is different, and that difference should be respected.

    It is said that the measure of righteousness in a person is realized when no one is watching them. According to French philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard, in the post-modern age, the language that we use transfers knowledge into information with the motivation of being culturally accepted and validated. 

    To assess how moral a person is on the basis of the political correctness of their language and the kind of persona they are on social media is insufficient. Policing a person’s behavior on social media won't make a big difference as long as the person’s actual behavior does not change.



    author bio photo

    Shradha Khanal  Shradha Khanal is a law student at Kathmandu School of Law. She also works as a freelance writer.



    Comments

    Get the best of

    the Record

    Previous Next

    YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

    Features

    6 min read

    Physical distancing a luxury many cannot afford

    Ayushma Regmi , Ishita Shahi - June 4, 2020

    Many migrant families in Kathmandu share cramped flats with each other, making physical distancing and self-quarantining impossible

    Features

    7 min read

    The Uranw and their Karma festival

    Aishwarya Baidar - November 22, 2021

    The indigenous Uranw have been lobbying for the Karma puja to be recognized nationally so that community members can get holidays to attend a festival of social cohesion and community bonding. 

    Explainers

    2 min read

    Purported government text message about snap curfew was a hoax

    Sanjog Shiwakoti - October 21, 2020

    South Asia Fact Check investigates the recent rumours about a snap curfew

    COVID19

    Perspectives

    10 min read

    What the pandemic foretells

    Jagannath Adhikari - May 1, 2020

    Covid19 has come as a wake up call to change the human-nature relationship

    Explainers

    5 min read

    The recent appointments to constitutional bodies, explained

    Bhadra Sharma - February 3, 2021

    By dissolving the House and pushing through an ordinance, Oli has twisted the law to place his own men in powerful constitutional positions.

    COVID19

    Features

    10 min read

    Stress and suicide in Nepal’s quarantines

    Bidya Rai - July 30, 2020

    Several inmates have died by suicide while many others have been hobbled by the depression and anxiety resulting from conditions inside Nepal’s ill-managed quarantine facilities

    Photo Essays

    4 min read

    Critical care

    Sujan Shrestha - June 10, 2020

    The lockdown has made it exceedingly difficult for Tul Bahadur Baram to get the dialysis treatment he needs

    Opinions

    7 min read

    Where is my honour?

    Ojaswee Bhattarai - June 6, 2020

    The insidious myths around virginity continue to disempower women

    • About
    • Contributors
    • Jobs
    • Contact

    CONNECT WITH US

    © Copyright the Record | All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy