The phenomenon of cancel culture has transformed from mere social criticism into a systematic mechanism of mob judgment in the digital era. This phenomenon emerges as a consequence of the permanence of digital footprints and public distrust toward the formal legal system, triggering the jargon "No Viral, No Justice." This study aims to analyze the ethical validity of cancel culture and its impact on the concept of justice. Employing a qualitative descriptive method with a library research approach, this study analyzes academic literature and legal regulations published between 2021–2025. The findings indicate that: (1) Permanent digital footprints are often re-contextualized to justify disproportionate social sanctions; (2) Cancel culture practices constitute a form of Digital Vigilantism that is fundamentally incompatible with criminal justice principles, particularly the presumption of innocence; and (3) Ethically, the perpetrators' motivations are often driven by morally motivated harassment rather than substantive justice enforcement. This study concludes that without a strong ethical foundation, cancel culture has the potential to become a destructive tyranny of the majority rather than a restorative tool.
You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.