https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Brown_(loyalist)
> Brown requested the liberty to hold his own opinions, saying that he could "never enter into an Engagement to take up arms against the Country which gave him being", and finally met their demands with pistol and sword. The crowd seized him and struck him with the butt of a musket, fracturing his skull. Taken prisoner, he was tied to a tree where he was roasted by fire and scalped before being tarred and feathered. Brown was then carted through a number of nearby settlements and forced to verbally pledge himself to the Patriot cause before being released. This mistreatment resulted in the loss of two toes and lifelong headaches.
Cancelling someone is also known as freedom of association.
edit: Media stirring shit up was a thing pre-Revolution, too, including at least two Founding Fathers participating themselves! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre#Media_battle
Personally, I don't care that it's age old. It's still not okay, and I don't care whether it's better or worse in modern times. I'm not even sure how far outside of propaganda some of this stuff falls, which ironically has the opposite reception from the public.
Trying to conflate “cancel culture” with the already-illegal concepts of stalking and harassment is disingenuous. Trolling and “narrative manipulation” are pretty clear protected free expression.
The founders largely were oligarchs, heirs of oligarchs, or married into the families of oligarchs,and certainly were not people to whom the idea of someone, or some group, within that class investing heavily in media to promote their political ideas would be surprising.
> look how the mainstream media would love to cancel certain people they don’t like.
Both before and after independence, political cancel culture in the early US involved much more forceful, and often permanent and total, cancellation than what is complained about today.
That sounds to me like a problem with the existence of billionaire oligarchs and not a problem with the first amendment.
Because "we'll revoke your First Amendment rights if we don't like how you're using them" is a very big step on a very steep and very slippery slope.
Assange's defense is likely to revolve around the First Amendment. Weakening it would hurt him, even.