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

    COVID19

    Features

    9 min read

    A million vaccines to come from China, but will it be enough?

    Ishita Shahi - May 26, 2021

    China has announced it will be providing 1 million vaccine doses to Nepal, but without COVAX and support from other countries, it will not be enough to vaccinate all of Nepal.

    Features

    4 min read

    On foot

    Sujan Shrestha , Ayushma Regmi - April 13, 2020

    Hundreds continue to flock out everyday from the joblessness, hunger and desperation that has come to plague their lives during the lockdown.

    COVID19

    Opinions

    6 min read

    The politics over life and death

    Avasna Pandey - September 15, 2020

    We anthropomorphize the economy by using words such as 'healthy' to describe it, while reducing human beings who live and breathe to mere numbers

    Perspectives

    6 min read

    Women are seen as victims in the fight for climate justice, and that needs to change

    Prasiddhi Shrestha - February 17, 2021

    Undeniable linkages between patriarchy, capitalism, and climate change require climate justice to go hand-in-hand with gender justice.

    COVID19

    Features

    5 min read

    Polls in the time of a pandemic

    Bhadra Sharma - January 24, 2021

    Vaccinating Nepalis will cost billions of rupees, but the Oli government would rather divert government funds towards election preparations

    COVID19

    News

    3 min read

    Covid19 Roundup, 28 April: Loan interests reduced for Covid19 affected as cases reach 54

    The Record - April 28, 2020

    A daily summary of all Covid19 related developments that matter

    COVID19

    Photo Essays

    3 min read

    Every fibre of his being

    Deewash Shrestha , Ishita Shahi - January 19, 2021

    Covid-19 forced Jaquir Mansuri to cancel his daughter’s wedding and delay his plans for retirement but the pandemic is not over yet and Mansuri has gone back to work.

    Photo Essays

    4 min read

    A city of disquiet

    The Record - March 31, 2020

    Kathmandu, our eternally bustling capital, has been lulled into sleep by the forbidding coronavirus

    • About
    • Contributors
    • Jobs
    • Contact

    CONNECT WITH US

    © Copyright the Record | All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy