Over the past few years a new name for an old practice has emerged. “Cancel Culture” is the new phrase for the old act of boycotting a product or celebrity that people consider problematic.

Though the practice of assuming the moral high ground is nothing new, “cancelling” occurs when people believe the product or celebrity does not deserve the platform that they hold, whether it be because of perceived racism, homophobia, sexism, or other forms of bigotry.

As with any controversial idea, cancel culture has caused plenty of turmoil in the political world. People on the right have consistently criticized cancel culture, even going as far as to call it unconstitutional. This view is plain wrong. The first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Let’s use, for argument’s sake, the example of a straight celebrity openly being homophobic. Yes, this celebrity is allowed, under US law, to say homophobic things. He or she cannot be fined or imprisoned for saying them. However, freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequence.

As US citizens, we are allowed to stop consuming media produced by that celebrity and encourage others to do the same. Furthermore, if a company, record label, or other private business does not want to continue associating with the celebrity, they don’t have to. Nobody is obligated to associate with anybody else.

Given the complaints over cancel culture, it seems that the right is far more interested in condemning cancel culture than condemning the bigotry that prompted it.

Furthermore, it is hypocritical of the right to criticize cancel culture when they also engage in it. For example, in 1956, in La Crosse, Wisconsin, after a performance by Elvis Presley, a message on the letterhead of a local Catholic diocese’s newspaper was sent to FBI director J. Edgar Hoover. It warned that “Presley is a definite danger to the security of the United States . . . ” His crime? “His actions and motions were such as to rouse the sexual passions of teenage youth . . . ”

Nor are the right’s cancelling practices confined to history. In 2012, the anti-gay, conservative group One Million Moms called for a JC Penney boycot after the retail chain aired an ad featuring Ellen DeGeneres. The organization wrote on their website: “Funny that JC Penney thinks hiring an openly homosexual spokesperson will help their business when most of their customers are traditional families. By jumping on the pro-gay bandwagon, JC Penney is attempting to gain a new target market and in the process will lose customers with traditional values that have been faithful to them over all these years.” There was also the criticism of the musical group The Chicks who were virtually cancelled by the right for speaking out against George W. Bush and the war in Iraq.

Cancel Culture is nothing new. People have been boycotting and protesting since civilization began. It certainly is not exclusive to one ideology or one political party. Activism is essential to the success of a free nation. Seeing something that is wrong and speaking out against it is the most American thing you can do. It goes for both sides. So before you buy into the belief that “cancel culture” goes against free speech, I encourage you to understand what free speech really is.