CANCEL CULTURE: WHEN THE INTERNET BECOMES THE COURT ROOM.

What if someone is genuinely guilty… but the punishment the internet gives them goes far beyond what the law would ever impose?

This is where cancel culture gets uncomfortable.
Imagine a popular Facebook influencer; let's call him Daniel.

Daniel has hundreds of thousands of followers. He makes money from his influence, gets brand deals, and has built a reputation around his online personality.
Then something terrible happens.

Evidence emerges. The authorities get involved. Daniel is eventually found guilty and has to face the legal consequences of his actions.
But the internet isn't satisfied.

People begin demanding that he be cancelled completely.

Brands cut ties.
Followers disappear.
Old posts are dug up.
People who have never met him begin insulting him.
Some start sharing personal information about him.
Others say:

"Good! He deserves everything coming to him."But does he?
Here's the question that bothers me:

If the law has already punished someone for their crime, does the internet have the right to create an additional punishment?

Before you answer, let's make it harder.
What if the person is genuinely guilty?
I'm not talking about false accusations.
I'm not talking about innocent people being dragged online.

I'm talking about someone who actually did something terrible and has already faced the legal consequences.

Can society still decide:
"We don't want this person anymore."

Personally, I think there's a difference between withdrawing support and destroying someone.

You can unfollow Daniel.
You can refuse to buy from his business.

A company can decide that his behaviour no longer represents its values.

Those are choices people are free to make.
But threats?
Harassment?
Doxxing?
Spreading private information?
Inventing stories?
Encouraging thousands of strangers to attack someone?

At that point, are we still talking about accountability; or have we simply created another form of punishment?

And here's the uncomfortable part:

Social media doesn't always care about due process.

The internet can convict someone in minutes.
No investigation.
No cross-examination.
No opportunity to properly defend yourself.

Just a screenshot, a viral post and thousands of angry comments.

And once the internet decides you're guilty, proving otherwise can be almost impossible.

But let's not ignore victims either.

Imagine being harmed by someone powerful and watching thousands of people defend them because they're popular.

That is another kind of injustice.

So I'm not saying we should protect terrible people from consequences.

I'm asking that we should be careful about becoming terrible or toxic ourselves in the process of punishing them.

Because there's a thin line between:

"I refuse to support what you did."and"I want to destroy your entire life."

Maybe accountability should have boundaries too.

Maybe being guilty doesn't mean someone suddenly becomes undeserving of basic human rights.

And maybe cancelling someone isn't automatically wrong either.

Sometimes withdrawing public support is simply society saying, "Your actions have consequences."

But who decides where those consequences should end?

The court?

The victims?

The public?

The platforms?

Or thousands of angry strangers behind their phones?

Let's argue this one.

If someone commits a terrible crime, gets convicted and serves their legal punishment, should society still have the right to permanently cancel them?

Or should there be a point where punishment ends and rehabilitation begins?

Let's get to read your thoughts.

This write up is my entry to the hl-week236 episode 2.
Thanks for stopping by!

Image used is AI generated.