Sometimes STFU is helpful

By Michael Henry Yusingco, LL.M

A few weeks ago, a man who has adopted a feminine appearance was shamed by another man who was not as presentable looking. The former is now technically referred to as a transgender woman, while the latter is still commonly known as butt ugly. Pertinently, it was the graduation picture of the transgender woman being “critiqued” by the unsightly man. Normally, the achievement of getting a degree would only elicit kudos but in the age of social media, GMRC play second fiddle to clicks and virality.

The words of the legendary pugilist/prophet, Iron Mike Tyson, ring true: “Social media made it too comfortable to disrespect people and not get punched in the face for it.” The desire to make a viral post has become a blinding obsession for many. Being controversial, even if it means being nasty to another human being, has become a necessity when creating social media content. Sadly, for mainstream media, if a post gets views, then it is fair game no matter how pernicious and destructive its effect can be.

The more serious tragedy here is using free speech as a justification for this lack of civility and decorum in public discourse. The idea that freedom of expression is about saying whatever you want, whenever you want is erroneous on a fundamental level. The constitutional protection of speech was never intended to be a green light to use dehumanizing language. Therefore, it is patently wrong to use our constitution as a license to insult and belittle others.

The reality is though; social media is now a breeding ground for what can only be called cowardice masked as freedom. But it cannot be emphasized enough that the loss of meaningful public discourse is not the result envisioned by free speech protection. Indeed, it is precisely adherence to this constitutional right that demands mindfulness in tone and language. Exercising healthy self-restraint in speech can open the door to more consequential dialogue.  And thus, there will be no need for Iron Mike to intervene.

But context is important here. Among close friends, where there is trust, it is understandable to be loose with words sometimes.  During drinking sessions, for instance, political correctness is often disregarded. But the consequences always stayed within the circle. Essentially, no harm is ever done. Public platforms are a different matter. The stakes are higher, and the hurt spreads farther. This is especially important in public settings where the tone of conversation influences civic participation. A less hostile environment encourages more voices to join the discussion.

Lets be clear, however. Self-editing your words is not about silencing your ideas. This is not about stifling creativity and constraining expression. The so-called right to offend notwithstanding, this is merely about optimizing self-communication.  In the end, it is not about censorship but about character.  Society benefits where speech leads to dialogue, not division. Where words build bridges, not burn them. Where freedom is exercised with care, not recklessness. This is how democracy is supposed to work as envisaged by freedom of speech protection.

This passage in the article, The Myth of the Chilling Effect, is a poignant reminder for every one of us living in the social media capital of the world:

“By changing only the tone of how individuals speak, rather than the actual content or purpose of a message, the chilling effect can encourage more civil forms of speech that are less offensive. When individuals are less offended, they are more likely to engage in thoughtful exchanges. These exchanges then ultimately promote participation in speech activity rather than upset it.”

We can disagree without being disagreeable. We do not need to punch down on the people who have a different view of the world. Criticism and debate are part of political discourse, but we do not need to sacrifice mutual respect, at least not in the public domain.