[II2II]

If you walk up to someone and punch them, it is reasonable for that person to press charges even though the repercussions may only last a few minutes. The consequence will be more-or-less immediate, even if it starts and ends with a discussion with a police officer.

If you slander someone, their recourse is to sue even though the repercussions may last for months or years. The consequence will not be immediate and the victim may not even have the means to pursue it.

I don't know if there is a good solution to the problem. You are perfectly correct in pointing out that the proposed solution can weaponize the power of the state. On the other hand, speech can, and has been, weaponized.

[ashtonkem]

I believe your proposal weaponizes speech even more; giving the ability of someone to accuse someone else of cancellation, which brings with it the threat of criminal action.

It seems pretty obvious to me that this would make “cancel culture” markedly worse.

[II2II]

Just to be clear: I am making observations, not proposals. I see the current situation as a problem, but do not see a clear way to resolve it.

It is difficult to understand why such an outcome is obvious. At one end of the spectrum, people are making claims that should be actionable through legal measures yet they choose to do make it actionable through speech. There are many reasons why this could be the case: lack of confidence in the legal system, expedience and perceived severity of punishment, or a lack of evidence to support the claims (assuming they are true). Regardless of why, I would classify it as vigilantism. Vigilantism has not place in a civil society that respects the process of law. In cases where the initial act was illegal, I find it difficult to call the threat of criminal action a tool of "cancel culture".

Then there are allegations that many may considered as immoral, yet are legal. The people making the allegations cannot use the threat of criminal action to cancel someone, unless they resort to slander (e.g. make up a criminal act). That is pretty much the current situation. On the other hand, those on the receiving end would have more recourse against deliberately malicious acts. Since there would be due process, I find it difficult to think of it as a tool to cancel those making the allegations.

[ashtonkem]

> At one end of the spectrum, people are making claims that should be actionable through legal measures

Be precise. What claims are actionable? Provide examples.

I think you might have a wildly inflated idea of what is and is not legally actionable, which is driving erroneous conclusions about what the law is, where it is going, and the limits of what is and is not possible in the courts under current jurisprudence.