Forget “cancel culture”—now, it’s all about “consequence culture.”
This new framing is being championed by Republican leaders and influential conservatives in the wake of political activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Numerous individuals have faced job losses for comments deemed insensitive regarding Mr. Kirk. Notably, ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show after he accused “the MAGA gang” of falsely labeling the man charged with Kirk’s murder as a leftist.
This aggressive campaign, spearheaded by Mr. Kirk’s supporters—and notably from the White House, with Vice President JD Vance urging citizens to report anyone “celebrating” Kirk’s death to their employers—was previously known as “cancel culture.”
For years, conservatives themselves weaponized the term “cancel culture” to criticize the left for attempting to professionally or socially marginalize individuals whose statements or actions were deemed objectionable.
However, supporters of Jimmy Kimmel and other critics now accuse the right of adopting the very “cancel culture” tactics they once denounced. In a strategic pivot, some Trump loyalists are now rebranding this phenomenon as “consequence culture.”
“When someone utters something widely perceived as offensive, rude, or foolish, and subsequently faces repercussions, that’s not cancel culture. That’s simply accountability for their actions,” stated Dave Portnoy, founder of Barstool Sports, on X recently.
Mr. Portnoy chose not to elaborate further on his comments via email.
This phrase is rapidly gaining momentum within conservative media. It’s appeared in National Review headlines such as “‘Consequence Culture’ Comes for the Angry Left” and in social media posts from figures like conservative activist Riley Gaines, who declared: “Cancel culture? No. Consequence culture.”
Despite its recent surge in popularity among pundits, “consequence culture” is not a new concept, nor was it coined by conservatives.
“Consequence culture” first emerged in the late 2010s, used in connection with social media movements advocating for the dismissal and social shunning of public figures due to insensitive or offensive remarks.
When “cancel culture” became the common term for these movements, many on the right fervently opposed it, decrying it as a threat to free speech.
“The right successfully established itself as a champion against ‘cancel culture’,” noted Meredith D. Clark, an associate professor of race and political communication. “They are, undeniably, masters of branding.”
In response, those advocating for accountability for offensive behavior began distancing themselves from the now-contentious phrase.
“The term cancel culture is a bad faith fallacy,” actor Alex Winter (known for “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure”) tweeted in 2019, commenting on industry figures who lost jobs after sexual misconduct allegations.
“There’s only consequence culture,” he continued, arguing it was “long overdue” and that many exposed predators still hadn’t faced significant repercussions.
The term then gradually made its way into mainstream media discussions.
In 2021, former Fox News host Lou Dobbs’ show was canceled following a defamation lawsuit accusing him of spreading voting machine conspiracies after the 2020 election. Brian Stelter, then host of CNN’s Reliable Sources, remarked at the time: “It is not cancel culture here. It is consequence culture. What are the consequences for riling up people with reckless lies about a democracy that most Americans cherish?”
That same year, Sunny Hostin, co-host of “The View,” drew a similar distinction when discussing Republican politicians’ attempts to distance themselves from the January 6th insurrection.
“We frequently hear the right speak of ‘cancel culture, cancel culture’,” Ms. Hostin stated on air. “What they truly oppose is a culture of accountability. They don’t want a consequence culture.”
More recently, actor George Takei, a well-known liberal voice, shared a Facebook post about a man fired after self-identifying as a “fascist” during a viral YouTube debate. Takei’s caption emphasized: “Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.”
While freedom of speech is a cornerstone of the First Amendment, proponents of these punitive measures often argue their actions don’t contradict this cherished American liberty.
However, a crucial distinction between “consequence culture” enacted by the left versus the right, as some argue, lies in the enforcers. Most individuals dismissed for comments regarding Mr. Kirk’s murder were sanctioned by private entities, a practice well within their rights.
In contrast, Mr. Kimmel’s suspension reportedly stemmed from pressure by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a government body. The First Amendment explicitly protects citizens from government restrictions on speech.
“That’s not cancel culture whatsoever,” stated Adrian Daub, a Stanford professor and author of “The Cancel Culture Panic: How an American Obsession Went Global,” in reference to Kimmel’s situation. “By what definition of cancel culture is using the levers of state to get a guy fired from his media job ‘cancel culture’? We don’t need a fancy new term for it. We know what that is: an authoritarian crackdown.”
Regardless of its true nature, Mr. Kirk’s supporters have adopted a name for this phenomenon—a name, ironically, learned from their political adversaries.