A new list of many people canceled for bad reasons

Up to now, the main source of information about cancellations was the “Campus Deplatforming Database” FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression). Going back to 1998, it now lists 1,507 deplatforming attempts on campus, of which 626 were successful (there have been 110 this year alone). They define these attempts this way:

A deplatforming attempt is a form of intolerance motivated by more than just mere disagreement with, or even protest of, some form of expression. It is an attempt to prevent some form of expression from occurring. Deplatforming attempts include efforts to disinvite speakers from campus speeches or commencement ceremonies, to cancel performances of concerts, plays, or the screenings of movies, or to have controversial artwork removed from public display. An attempt to disrupt a speech or performance that is in progress is also considered a deplatforming attempt, whether it succeeds or fails.

Deplatforming attempts do not include criticisms of some form of expression and protests denouncing them that are not motivated by the goal of deplatforming the controversial expression.

Here are a few examples in a screenshot (click to read); go to the page to read more.

When you click on “view” to the right, you get more details about the incidents, including whether the deplatforming attempt came from the Left, Right, somewhere else, or isn’t known.

For example, I didn’t know that Bari Weiss was the subject of an unsuccessful deplatforming attempt at UNC Chapel Hill this year (the subject was Israel). The deplatforming attempt came from the Left, and among the details FIRE notes that

“About 25 minutes into Weiss’ discussion with Frank Bruni, protesters affiliated with Students for Justice in Palestine began waving Palestine flags and shouting at the stage. A university administrator took to the podium and informed the protesters that, as per university policy, they are not allowed to disrupt the event and must leave. Police escorted the protesters out of the event and Weiss and Bruni resumed and completed their discussion.”

SJP never gives up!  At any rate, the source of the deplatforming, Left or Right, gives an interesting take on who’s trying to cancel people. I once did a survey over a few decades, and, as I recall, early on deplatforming attempts seemed to come almost equally from the Left or Right, while in the last seven or eight years ago the majority of them, by far, came from the Left.  I just looked at the first 20 on the list, and found that 13 deplatformings came from the Left and the other 7 from the Right, but of course there are multiple events from a school at the same time. But I’d bet my hat that in the last five years, a sizable majority of deplatforming events came from the Left, which is a weakness of my side. People on the Left, or at least liberals, are not supposed to suppress speech.

The weakness of the FIRE survey compared to the one below is that the former deals only with deplatforming attempts on campus.

There is now a new “cancellation” database (click the screenshot) that has two advantages: it deals with cancellations that don’t just occur on campus, and these are cancellations that, when successful (most of them have been) result not in the ending of a talk or speech, but in substantial damage to a person’s career, including firing, demotion, and so on. Some details are given.

The new “canceled people” list includes about 210 victims, some of whom you will recognize. All the cancellations appear to have occurred this year, though the offenses may have occurred several years before, as with  They come from several Western countries, though mostly from the U.S.

And, as far as I can see, none of the cancellations were justified. In some cases, the courts or other appeals reversed the cancellations.

First, part of what they say about the reason why the database was constructed and how they define cancellation. There’s more at the “about” page.

Purpose

We are building a database of people who have been “canceled”.

Our purpose is to better understand cancel culture itself as a phenomenon. How does it manifest? How is it evolving? How does it affect societal norms around free speech that enable democracy to function and flourish? By consolidating as many well-sourced data points as possible, we hope to give researchers and others the tools to explore and draw their own conclusions.

What does it mean to be canceled?

There has been some controversy over whether or not cancel culture is real. Obviously, we do think it is real – that is the whole reason this database exists!

Part of the problem when discussing cancel culture’s prevalence and existence is that there has been no clear definition of what it means to be canceled.

For the purposes of this database, we will use the following definition:

1. The canceled person has been targeted for behavior that falls within the boundaries of “reasonable expression” (see more on this below). The “offense” may not be recent, and it may not even be their own action.
2. The canceled person has lost their job or position (this includes forced resignations). Their future professional opportunities have been limited. If they are self-employed, they have suffered financial losses from a boycott or sabotage of their company.
3. The canceled person has faced a coordinated effort to silence them. The effort seeks to render their person or their ideas unfit to discuss.
4. The canceled person has faced a coordinated effort to shame them and destroy their reputation. The effort seeks to damage their self-worth and will likely target their personal or professional relationships.

What is not included?

It is perhaps as important to define what should not be considered a “canceled person”:

1. A person who has been subject to harsh criticism or disagreement. Disagreeing with someone’s speech or behavior, even in a cruel way, is not the same as canceling them.
2. A person who has been subject to online harassment but no “real-world” consequences. We recognize that online harassment and bullying can be horrific. Part of what makes cancelation unique is the attempt to bring the person down by moving outside of the online space. Most commonly, this involves contacting their employer or making them unemployable.
3. A person who has said or done something outside of the window of reasonable expression and therefore is predictably getting their comeuppance. This could include many different things: saying a racial slur with the intention to wound, inflicting a sexual fetish on others, denying the Holocaust, etc. Our society does have legitimate reasons to shun a person, and employers have legitimate reasons to fire an employee.
4. A person who has said or done something illegal. This one seems obvious, but for example, threatening a person online may lead to real-world “cancelation” as well as legal action – rightly so!
5. A person who had the attempt made to cancel them that did not succeed. There are many examples of this and we believe they are troubling and worth paying attention to – they likely do have “chilling effects” on free speech. However, they are an example of the system working properly; the mob went after someone and did not succeed.

Here are a few examples that you can find by using the “find” function on the site. There are links so you can verify the cancellations from sources on the Internet:

It’s interesting to peruse the list, but keep in mind that people’s careers have been wrecked by this stuff. Remember this one?

And this one, also involving the New York Times?

Almost all of these involve freedom of speech, though there are cancellations for stuff like refusals to sign oaths and, in the case of NYT editor James Bennet, for simply running an op-ed that didn’t comport with the ideology of the NYT.  His being forced out wasn’t a violation of the First Amendment, as a paper can fire whom it wants, but it was unjustified and a violation of the canons of good journalism.

Anyway, have a look.