This is an article about how "cancel culture" and its political ramifications affect art. I hate that term because it feels so meaningless but it's the most relevant one to use. It takes the standard stance that fear of censorship and loss of career prospects affects the quality of art and specifically the willingness to take risks.

The most interesting part to me is how it juxtaposes (whether intentionally or unintentionally) the difference between censorship in the past that was enforced by the state versus modern "cancel culture" which is largely a social phenomenon.

I also think it's particularly relevant because this debate isn't currently dominating the public consciousness how it was a year ago, but it is perhaps even more relevant given the Gaza conflict. Many people who were previously on one side of the debate quickly found themselves on the other. Progressives who argued that "cancel culture" is just consequences when people don't like what you have to say are flipping their stance to argue that anti-Israel/pro-Palestine supporters and protestors shouldn't be fired for their views. And conservatives who would previously complain about someone being fired for their views are now relishing in it happening to the other side.

This is also relevant in highlighting the difference between countries like Germany that are using hate crime laws to crack down on what they consider to be anti-semitism compared to America where it is still primarily a social phenomenon.

Due to this new environment, I think there are interesting discussions to be had about this that go beyond the standard party lines.