From the earliest times, music has been considered a territory where there is always room for those who have something to say. But who decides what can be said through music? Are censorship and cancel culture oxymorons or similar concepts?
Censorship and Cancel Culture in comparison
To this day, the concept of free expression of thought is not always guaranteed. Being born in opposite poles of the world profoundly affects the possibilities of expression and the limitations imposed by social, political, and cultural contexts. In some countries, such as Iran or Saudi Arabia, government censorship imposes silence through repressive laws. Elsewhere, in Western countries, the so-called "cancel culture" can determine the end of an artist's career, sometimes without any possibility of redemption. Two very different contexts, both resulting in silenced voices but with different origins.
Censorship in music and the Iranian Googoosh
Censorship in some middle-Eastern countries is imposed by repressive regimes, where governments set the boundaries between what is forbidden and what is allowed to be said. It often has legislative foundations, as in the case of Sharia, the sacred law of the Islamic religion whose interpretation varies depending on the country and the religious authorities enforcing it. In the strictest contexts, music is heavily penalized, particularly affecting women.
The Iranian government, after the 1979 Revolution, banned women from singing in front of mixed audiences. Women can only perform for a female audience or in a choir with men, as, according to one interpretation of Sharia law, the female voice could seduce men and thus be deemed inappropriate. Furthermore, songs that talk about freedom, women's rights, or sexuality are censored or banned.
The only alternative for Iranian singers to express themselves freely is often to flee.
Googoosh, one of the most famous voices in Iranian music, had to interrupt her career after the revolution, initially taking refuge in Turkey, then moving to Canada, where she lived for many years. Her music, a symbol of modernity and freedom, was banned, and she herself endured an enforced silence that lasted more than a decade. After years of exile, she managed to return to the international scene, continuing to express herself without the censorship that had once stifled her. She has become a symbol of a broader struggle against censorship and the repression of artistic freedom in Iran, demonstrating that music, like any art form, can be a tool of resistance and expression, even when the freedom to create is hindered by power.
Cancel culture: another form of censorship?
If censorship in authoritarian regimes is imposed from above, through repressive laws and governments, in Western countries there is another phenomenon that can limit artistic freedom: ‘cancel culture.’ This term refers to the public boycott of a person, often a media figure or an artist, because of statements or behavior deemed problematic. It does not manifest itself through official state-imposed bans, but operates through the power of public opinion, amplified by social media.
The effects of this phenomenon on music are manifold. Some artists, for example, have had their songs removed from streaming platforms or banned from radio stations following controversy, as happened to R. Kelly after allegations of sexual abuse.A key aspect of ‘cancel culture’ is its impact on social media: the viral spread of a scandal can quickly lead to total exclusion from the music industry. Kanye West, for example, lost major commercial partnerships after his anti-Semitic statements, while Doja Cat was the subject of a massive boycott campaign following the resurfacing of old controversial chats. We’re not saying that it isn’t right to “cancel” singers who commit serious crimes such as rape, violence, racism, hate or similar actions.
However, there are situations where the artist has not been accused of any crime or has not done anything severe but is still targeted by the public simply because they disagree with what they have said. One example is Demi Lovato, against whom the hashtag DemiLovatoIsOverParty was launched without an apparent reason but there’s also Eminem, “canceled” by some members of the Gen Z who consider him too raw and who, apparently, doesn’t have the tools to understand him.
In fact, the boundary between fair criticism and the suppression of artistic expression is often thin. Another example is Lana Del Rey who has been at the center of several controversies in recent years, becoming a target of cancel culture. Although she has not been completely “canceled,” she has faced criticism on multiple fronts, particularly accusations of anti-feminism and the romanticization of violence in relationships. Lana's artistic imagery, often characterized by references to emotional dependence and toxic relationships, has sparked debate, especially due to the lyric "He hit me and it felt like a kiss" from Ultraviolence which has been accused of glorifying domestic violence. However, Lana has always defended her style, emphasizing that her lyrics tell stories of complex women rather than promoting harmful behaviors.
Unlike Kanye and R. Kelly who have been accused of actual crimes, Lana Del Rey’s case is an example of how “cancel culture” raises broader concerns about artistic freedom in an era of heightened social awareness, where every word and image can become the subject of intense debate and controversy. Sure, it is something completely different from censorship, but in some cases, these two concepts run the risk of having similar outcomes. Of course it is something completely different from censorship but, in some cases, these two concepts run the risk of having similar outcomes.
Cancel culture and censorship: similar concepts but totally different.
Ultimately, when comparing cancel culture and traditional censorship, a complex reality emerges in which the line between freedom and control becomes increasingly blurred. While censorship in authoritarian regimes is an imposed top-down mechanism that silences dissenting voices in the interest of power, cancel culture operates within democratic societies but can sometimes produce similar effects. In both cases, individuals who express nonconforming opinions risk being excluded from public discourse, whether they are artists in countries under strict governmental control or public figures caught in the middle of a media storm.
However, the key difference lies in the nature of control: censorship is imposed, while cancel culture is collective. In the former, dissent is silenced by force; in the latter, it is social consensus that determines what is acceptable and what is not. Perhaps the real challenge is to find a balance between accountability and freedom, between the right to criticize and the need to allow art and culture to express themselves without the constant fear of collective judgment. Because while freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequences, it is equally true that the fear of public backlash should not turn into a new form of self-censorship.