Carla Gericke

Selective outrage isn’t principle. It’s power-grabbing dressed up as virtue. That’s why “cancel culture” is just a rhetorical cudgel, not a consistent philosophy–and if you’re using it selectively, congratulations, you’ve outed yourself as a hypocrite of the highest order. And the worst part? You know it. And you don’t care. Which makes you not only an easily manipulated political pawn, but someone who lacks integrity. Congrats! You’ve leveled up to an NPC in Idiocracy while carrying your outrage
Free Speech ≠ Freedom from Consequences
Let’s clear the air: the First Amendment protects speech from government interference. It does not, and never did, promise you immunity from social or economic consequences. Libertarians like me defend absolute free expression–no state censor, no jackboot at the door, no prison for bad jokes. But liberty cuts both ways: other people own their time, money, platforms, and reputations. They get to walk away. They get to boycott. They get to fire you. That’s not tyranny–it’s freedom of association.
The Hypocrisy: “Cancel Culture for Thee, Not for Me”
This is where the mask slips. Conservatives mocked liberals as “snowflakes” for years, claiming cancel culture was a left-wing plot to silence dissent. But look at what’s happening now. After the assassination of Charlie Kirk (Sept 13, 2025), the same voices suddenly discovered their inner thought police.
Over sixty Americans–teachers, flight attendants, nurses, public employees–have faced suspensions or firings after online posts mocking Kirk’s death. This is gross. I don’t like it. I don’t want people with such dark hearts teaching kids. But now Trump, MAGA influencers, and outlets like Fox News are openly demanding lifetime bans, professional blacklists, even license revocations? This is… rich. For speech they don’t like? Speech Pam Bondi is now calling “hate speech”? Exactly the thing they claimed to oppose a month ago?
This hypocrisy isn’t new. The woke-right boycotted Bud Light over a trans influencer, targeted Disney for “woke-left” storylines, and cheered on book bans. When they do it, it’s “consumer choice.” When the left does it, it’s “cancel culture.” The truth? Both sides are just exercising association rights. The only fraud is pretending your tribe is exempt.
The Right of Association—A Forgotten Principle
Here’s where we need to get serious. The whole “cancel culture” debate collapses once you understand the right of association. It’s not some fringe concept–it’s baked into liberty itself.
Philosophical roots: John Locke argued you own yourself. That means you own your choices–who you work with, who you break bread with, who you boycott. Ayn Rand said it flatly: no one has the right to force you into associations you don’t want. John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty, insisted that while government must never crush opinion, society is free to frown, disapprove, or ostracize. This is not tyranny. It is the cost of community.
Constitutional roots: The word “association” never appears in the Constitution, but courts carved it out of the First Amendment’s protections. For example:
NAACP v. Alabama (1958): the state wanted civil rights membership lists. SCOTUS said no—that would kill free association.
Boy Scouts v. Dale (2000): the Scouts had the right to exclude a gay scoutmaster. Agree or not, the Court affirmed the principle: government can’t dictate who sits at your table.
Layer in the Ninth Amendment’s unenumerated rights and the Fourteenth’s due process clause, and you have a clear constitutional foundation.
Libertarian application: In practice, it’s simple. You can open a business that refuses service based on your beliefs. The state shouldn’t stop you. But the market may punish you–customers could boycott, employees may quit. That’s not cancellation. That’s freedom in action. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado (2018) shows the tension: a baker refusing to make a gay wedding cake. The Court dodged, but the libertarian principle is clear: no one should be forced to bake a cake, and no one is forced to buy. Stated differently: My shop, my rules.
Hypocrisy kills credibility: This selective outrage over Kirk’s death is damning. Conservatives are now invoking the very principle they claimed to hate: demanding people lose jobs for speech. But here is the unvarnished truth: Turns out, they don’t despise “cancel culture.” They just despise consequences for themselves. Apparently, when the shoe is on the other foot, it should pinch.
Say What You Want, But Don’t Demand a Seat
Imagine a boardroom where you call your gay colleagues “faggots.” No government should arrest you. But your coworkers can resign, ostracize you, or fire your ass. That’s not “cancellation.” That’s voluntary disassociation. Rights are individual. No one has a right to force others to subsidize or tolerate them.
Same logic applies to Kirk. Celebrate his death if you want–I think you are disgusting and I wouldn’t want you anywhere near me. But, don’t be shocked when your employer decides you’re bad for business. Free speech lives. Association rights live. Government has no role.
Reclaiming the Principle
“Cancel culture” is a myth. It’s not a principle—it’s a partisan whine. If you’re against it, be against it everywhere. If you’re for it, admit it’s just freedom of association. What you can’t do is decry the woke-left while behaving exactly like them.
Liberty means taking the hits. It means standing by your words, and letting others do the same. If we actually believed in free societies, we’d defend the right to speak and the right to walk away–with no double standards, no tribal exceptions.
Anything less is just hypocrisy dressed up as principle. Anything less is just you contributing to chaos through inconsistency.

Anything less is just you, a political pawn.

Can we get back to libertarian consistency, please? Remember our jobs are to point out the insanity on the left and the right, not to become “The Right,” and wrong.

***

Selective outrage reveals “cancel culture” as a rhetorical tool, not a consistent principle, making all y’all a bunch of mofo hypocrites of the highest order, and, deep down, you know it… and don’t care, and that, on top of being a political pawn, means you have no integrity…

In an era where political discourse is increasingly polarized, the term “cancel culture” has become a weaponized buzzword, often invoked by those on the right to decry what they perceive as unfair social or economic repercussions for controversial speech. However, this concept is fundamentally flawed—a construct peddled by propagandists to shield offensive or harmful rhetoric under the banner of “free speech,” while conveniently ignoring the counterbalancing principle of freedom of association. As a libertarian, I fully endorse the absolute right to free expression: governments should never censor or punish speech, no matter how distasteful. But true liberty also means individuals and private entities have the right to choose whom they associate with, support, or employ. “Cancel culture” isn’t a sinister plot; it’s the natural outcome of a free society where actions have voluntary, non-coercive consequences. To illustrate this, let’s examine the hypocrisy of those who once railed against it but now wield it themselves, particularly in the wake of recent events like the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Free Speech Does Not Entail Freedom from Consequences

At its core, the First Amendment protects citizens from government infringement on speech. It does not, and should not, shield anyone from the private reactions of others. In a libertarian framework, this is rooted in property rights, voluntary exchange, and non-aggression. You own your words, but others own their time, money, and associations. If you express views that alienate customers, colleagues, or communities, they are free to withdraw their support—whether by boycotting a business, firing an employee, or shunning a public figure. This isn’t censorship; it’s the marketplace of ideas functioning as intended.

Consider historical precedents: In the 1950s, during the McCarthy era, private blacklisting of suspected communists was decried by many as an overreach, yet it was largely driven by voluntary decisions from studios and employers, not state mandates. Fast-forward to today, and similar dynamics play out without government involvement. For instance, when companies like Disney faced conservative-led boycotts over inclusive content, critics on the right celebrated it as “consumer choice.” Yet when progressive groups boycotted brands like Goya for political affiliations, the same voices labeled it “cancel culture.” This selective outrage reveals “cancel culture” as a rhetorical tool, not a consistent principle.

From a libertarian lens, these are all valid exercises of freedom. Economist Milton Friedman argued that in a free market, discrimination or association based on beliefs is permissible as long as it’s not enforced by law—though he noted markets often punish inefficiency, like bigotry that limits talent pools. Similarly, philosopher John Stuart Mill in On Liberty emphasized that while society cannot legally suppress opinions, it can impose social sanctions through ostracism or disapproval. True liberty thrives when individuals bear the personal costs of their expressions, fostering accountability without state intervention.

The Hypocrisy Exposed: From Victims to Perpetrators

The irony peaks when examining how conservatives, who have long positioned themselves as defenders against “woke” cancellation, now enthusiastically participate in it. For years, figures like Charlie Kirk himself lambasted “cancel culture” as a left-wing tyranny stifling debate. Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, relished provocative rhetoric and championed open discourse, often decrying firings or deplatformings as un-American. Yet following his tragic assassination on September 13, 2025, a wave of right-wing activists and politicians—including high-profile Trump allies—have demanded firings, investigations, and ostracism for anyone perceived as celebrating or mocking his death.

Over 60 Americans, including educators, airline workers, and public employees, have faced suspensions, terminations, or doxxing campaigns led by accounts like Libs of TikTok and coordinated conservative networks. President Trump and MAGA influencers, who spent years mocking “snowflake” liberals for sensitivity, now call for “lifetime bans” and license revocations over online posts deemed “hate speech.” This isn’t isolated; it’s part of a pattern. Conservatives boycotted Bud Light over a transgender influencer partnership, targeted Disney for “woke” policies, and pushed book bans in schools—actions they once attributed solely to the left.

Journalist Don Lemon highlighted this double standard, noting that while the right decries cancellation for “abhorrent” speech, they apply it selectively. As one commentator put it, conservatives don’t hate cancellation—they hate consequences for themselves. This hypocrisy undermines their credibility: if “cancel culture” is wrong, why embrace it when politically expedient? In the Kirk case, media outlets like Fox News and Axios report a “growing chorus” of conservatives targeting critics, even as they lionize Kirk as a free-speech martyr. It’s a textbook case of political tribalism overriding principle.

A Libertarian Example: Speech, Slurs, and Severed Ties

To make this concrete, consider a boardroom scenario: Imagine you’re a corporate executive who, in a heated debate, calls your gay fellow board members “faggots.” Under libertarian ideals, you have every right to utter those words—no government should arrest you or censor your expression. Free speech protects even the vilest opinions, as it must to safeguard all discourse.

However, your colleagues also have rights. They can resign, refuse to collaborate, or vote you out, citing a toxic environment that hinders productivity. The company, as a private entity, can terminate your contract if your behavior violates internal policies or alienates stakeholders. This isn’t “cancellation”—it’s freedom of association in action. As libertarian thinker Ayn Rand argued, rights are individual; no one is entitled to force others to endure or fund their presence. If the board “cancels” you by severing ties, that’s their prerogative, just as you’d be free to start a new venture with like-minded individuals.

This principle applies universally. When conservatives demanded boycotts of brands supporting LGBTQ+ rights, they exercised association rights. When progressives shun figures like J.K. Rowling for trans-related views, it’s the same. The Kirk backlash—firing teachers for showing assassination videos or mocking his death—follows suit, but the hypocrisy lies in pretending it’s different when they do it.

Conclusion: Reclaim True Liberty

“Cancel culture” is a myth designed to privilege one side’s speech while demonizing the other’s responses. In a libertarian society, we embrace both free expression and its voluntary repercussions, rejecting government overreach while allowing markets and communities to self-regulate. The recent hypocrisy surrounding Charlie Kirk’s death—where anti-cancel crusaders become cancel enforcers—exposes this as partisan gamesmanship, not principled defense. If we truly value liberty, we must defend association rights for all, even when it stings. Only then can we foster a society where ideas compete freely, without the crutch of bogus constructs.

The Right of Association:

The right of association, while not explicitly named in the U.S. Constitution, is a fundamental liberty derived from several constitutional principles and philosophical foundations, deeply rooted in the concept of individual autonomy. From a libertarian perspective, it emerges naturally from first principles of self-ownership and voluntary interaction, and it has been recognized through legal and historical developments. Here’s a clear and concise breakdown of its origins:

1. Philosophical Foundations

• Self-Ownership and Liberty: Libertarian thinkers like John Locke and Ayn Rand argue that individuals own themselves and their labor, implying the right to choose with whom they associate, work, or transact. Freedom of association is a logical extension of personal sovereignty—you’re free to form relationships or groups without coercion and equally free to abstain from them.
• Social Contract Theory: Philosophers like Rousseau and Locke emphasized voluntary agreements as the basis for societal organization. The right to associate (or not) reflects the individual’s ability to enter or exit social contracts, absent state interference.
• John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty: Mill argued that individuals should be free to form associations to pursue common goals, as long as they don’t harm others. He saw social sanctions (like ostracism) as a natural outcome of free choice, distinct from government coercion.

2. Constitutional Roots in the U.S.

The right of association is not explicitly stated in the Constitution but is inferred from several amendments, particularly in the Bill of Rights:

• First Amendment: The rights to free speech, assembly, and petition imply a broader right to associate for expressive or political purposes. The Supreme Court has recognized this in cases like NAACP v. Alabama (1958), where it held that forcing a group to disclose membership violated their associational rights, as it chilled free speech and assembly.
• Ninth Amendment: This amendment protects unenumerated rights retained by the people. Courts have interpreted freedom of association as one such right, inherent to individual liberty.
• Fourteenth Amendment: The Due Process Clause has been used to protect associational rights, particularly in private settings, by ensuring government does not unduly interfere with personal or group affiliations.

3. Legal Recognition

• Supreme Court Precedents: The right was explicitly articulated in cases like Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), where the Court upheld the Boy Scouts’ right to exclude a gay scoutmaster, citing their freedom to associate (and exclude) based on shared values. Similarly, Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984) balanced associational rights with anti-discrimination laws, affirming the right but allowing limited state regulation.
• Types of Association: Courts distinguish between expressive association (e.g., political or religious groups) and intimate association (e.g., personal relationships). Both are protected, though expressive association often receives stronger First Amendment scrutiny.

4. Libertarian Application

In a libertarian framework, the right of association is paramount because it respects individual choice in a free market. You can choose your friends, coworkers, or customers, just as others can refuse to engage with you. For example:

• A business owner can refuse service based on personal beliefs (subject to market consequences), as seen in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado (2018).
• Employees can quit or boycott a company whose values they reject, just as employers can fire workers whose actions harm the organization—both are exercises of associational freedom, not “cancellation.”

5. Hypocrisy in Practice

The “cancel culture” debate often ignores this right. When conservatives demand firings for speech celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death, they exercise associational freedom (e.g., boycotting or shunning), yet decry it when used against them. This selective application underscores that the issue isn’t association itself but the expectation of immunity from its consequences.

Conclusion

The right of association flows from the bedrock of individual liberty—philosophically from self-ownership, legally from constitutional protections, and practically from the voluntary nature of human interactions. It ensures you can call someone a slur, but they can choose not to work with you. In a free society, both are sacred, and neither should be curtailed by the state. The hypocrisy lies in demanding one right while dismissing the other, a contradiction libertarians reject by upholding both consistently.