She is a towering literary figure, a writer already guaranteed remembrance by history, and an outspoken feminist and anti-racist. What could she have to be afraid of?

Twitter users, apparently. In a BBC lecture this week, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie spoke at length on social media backlash against public figures for articulating controversial views, stating that it is making young people "afraid to ask questions for fear of asking the wrong questions".

Adichie has become an outspoken critic of "cancel culture" and other perceived restrictions of freedom of speech in recent years. She believes the desire to avoid attracting a barrage of criticism online will lead to "the death of curiosity, the death of learning and the death of creativity", as people feel less at liberty to converse and learn from each other.

The writer is no stranger to online abuse. Adichie faced a backlash after defending fellow writer JK Rowling, who has been accused of transphobic views online.

Twitter is at the centre of this furore. But Elon Musk, its new owner, defines freedom of speech differently. Since becoming commander-in-chief of the social media site around a month ago, Musk has vowed to give users more freedom to express their views online - even when it comes to conspiracy theories, discrimination and abuse against public figures.

In fact, a few days ago Twitter announced that it has stopped taking action against tweets which spread misinformation about Covid-19.

So for some, freedom of speech should mean the freedom to express views, however potentially offensive, without censure. For others, it means having the freedom to bully anonymously. At the centre of the question is the line between criticism and censorship.

Likewise, some call cancel culture a disturbing trend and even liken it to censorship in the Soviet UnionOfficially the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). A powerful group of communist republics, the biggest being Russia, that existed from 1922 to 1991. or during the French Revolution. Others dismiss it as a moral panicA widespread, often irrational fear over the future of a society's values, interests or security., pointing out that no "cancelled" figure has ever really seen a huge loss in income, influence or status.¹

Other examples of moral panic throughout history include the Red ScareA conspiracy claiming that covert communists were plotting to take over the US., the fear of alternative music such as jazz, and the Salem witch trialsA series of hearings held in colonial Massachusetts between 1692 and 1693 in response to a moral panic about witchcraft. More than 200 people were accused and 19 executed..²

British sociologist Stanley Cohen thinks that this is a simplification. Moral panics might often be irrational, but they express "warning signs of the real, much deeper and more prevalent condition". Freedom of speech may still be under threat, just not in the way that we think.

Others point out that cancel culture is nothing new. In the 5th Century, Ancient Greek citizens used to "vote out" wrongdoers - often rich, elite Athenians - into exile for ten years at a time for crimes like dishonesty, political radicalism or plain unpopularity.

Yes: Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie is right. If people do not feel able to express their views, they will never learn to think differently. We need freedom of speech, above all else, to create constructive dialogues.

No: There is no evidence that cancel culture even exists. But if public figures can speak out against marginalised people without criticism, there will definitely be more prejudice in society.

Or... There are plenty of reasons not to believe in cancel culture. But nobody should be justifying harmful and toxic online abuse, even against people who express discriminatory views.