Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

Online attacks on writers unproductive, hurt free speech

I refer to Mr Jerald Soon Shao Wei’s letter “Banning shisha, but not cigarettes, a justified move” (Nov 14) and the flurry of online fury that followed its publication.

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp
Fong Lin Elizabeth

I refer to Mr Jerald Soon Shao Wei’s letter “Banning shisha, but not cigarettes, a justified move” (Nov 14) and the flurry of online fury that followed its publication.

Admittedly, Mr Soon’s commentary on the ban on shisha, which made reference to several theories of legal philosophy, contained some egregious logical leaps. However, the failings in his letter are not so dire for them to warrant the vitriol he attracted.

It is true that we have the liberty to post whatever we want online, within limits set by community guidelines, and we have the choice to exercise our freedom of speech. It is also true that in exercising freedom of speech, we have the option of calling people out on their own exercise of that freedom. In other words, people can post letters that you may not agree with and you can exercise the right to critique them.

However, while there were those who did rebut Mr Soon’s arguments on logical, reasonable grounds, there were many others who chose to simply inquire if he was delusional and questioned his intelligence.

I am sure there are many who will dismiss these insults on the basis that they are foreseeable consequences of participation in public discourse. Not every mistake in life is dealt with by polite correction by a teacher.

Nevertheless, attacking an argument by attacking the arguer is a method of criticism that detracts from, rather than adds to, any debate.

Shutting down those who think differently from you by insulting their intelligence and making assumptions about their political affiliations in derogatory language is, putting it mildly, not particularly nice.

In addition, such behaviour might in fact discourage free speech. Instead of discussing social issues openly, commenters might be too wary of getting “flamed” online to contribute to public discourse — which creates a forum where people are too concerned about appearing too pro- or too anti- establishment to engage in any meaningful debate. Needless to say, such an atmosphere is not ideal.

It would be best for everyone if commenters focused on the article and not the writer, for these reasons.

We ought to deconstruct arguments, not disparage our fellow man.

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.