Who’s afraid of Senyora?

SBy ENYORA Santibañez, one of the country’s most wellknown social media celebrities, recently lost her Facebook Page. She didn’t unpublish it, but Facebook did -- after an apparently concerted effort by her critics to report Senyora’s alleged violations of Facebook rules.

Senyora is not a real person, but a parody. She became popular as the face and voice of the merciless haciendera. Her brand of parody and satire was refreshing -- because this time, she portrayed the evil gentry of the provinces. People saw some aspect of truth in Senyora, especially since we continue to hear news about the horrible fate of farmworkers in haciendas in the hands of hacienderos.

In the run-up to the 2016 elections, Senyora placed her bets on Rodrigo Duterte. It wasn’t surprising because the person behind Senyora is a Bisayaspeaking Filipino who, like others, also wanted a Bisaya-speaking leader to be president.

Whether Senyora has done anything illegal or immoral, I’m no longer sure. Because a hyperpartisan group has managed to fool themselves into thinking that she is a “news source” and, worse, a “fake news source.”

Thus, for this subset of the online population, it was only right that Facebook shut her page down and scuttled her millions of followers.

I don’t know about you, but Senyora has never pretended to be a “news source.” Senyora has never been known or claimed to be such, whether it is her Facebook Page or Twitter account. She’s a parody, for chrissakes.

Over the weekend, the hyperpartisans gloated over Senyora’s fate, showing their remarkable ignorance about parodies and about free speech. They were congratulating themselves for a job well done, and threatening others with the same fate.

What they actually meant was that they want to censor and take down pages and accounts of citizens who don’t share their opinions and views. We respect their right to harbor illusions that they alone have the correct opinions -- a part of their good vs. evil mindset -- but we also have the right to express not just displeasure. We have a right and obligation to point out that they are wrong and that the way they wage their political war destroys the democratic space they supposedly defend.

Of course, they have their other argument. They also accuse Senyora of using and spreading “hate speech”. How Senyora uses and spreads “hate speech”, they cannot tell. Heck, they cannot even tell what “hate speech” is. From what we could get from their self-absorbed tweets and posts, “hate speech” is -- surprise -- yet another term for opinions that are different from theirs.

Unfortunately, mere annoyance is not a characteristic of “hate speech.” If they know what “hate speech” is, and if they have proof that Senyora uses and spreads it, they could always go to court to seek redress.

But in the same way that extrajudicial killings are nothing more to them than a convenient “wedge issue” against their political enemy, the anti-Senyora campaign ain’t about “fake news” or “hate speech”. It is a transparently political effort to curb the social media space for their own political benefit. Instead of debunking “fake news” or combating “hate speech,” they applaud takedowns or censorship.

Parodies and satire such as Senyora should be protected and defended, especially in the political sphere. The cynical, morally destitute and intellectually bankrupt claims that Senyora is a fake news source or a source of hate speech should be exposed. They are a fig leaf that could hardly cover up censorship, open attacks on political parody and political expression, and self-righteous politicking.

Senyora’s haters have every right to hate her, but they have no right to claim she doesn’t have a right to exist and to seize a place in the arena of politics. Differences in opinion cannot be a basis for seeking to turn off an opponent’s microphone or to take down a Facebook Page.

Come to think of it, it wasn’t just Senyora that got ambushed on Facebook. They also ambushed and demolished her community. Call them misinformed, not funny, or a horde of “Dutertards” -- but don’t they have the right to free speech and to free association as well?

This is not about defending or promoting Duterte on whatever means, pretext, or basis people have in their minds. This is about something basic. This is about our right to freely express those views and opinions. Much as I agree that we must confront fake news or hate speech, I reject the political yarn that parodies and contrary opinions should be taken down to protect democracy.

Parodies and contrary opinions are part of democracy. Subversive views too.

Those who feel they are correct in the echo chamber labeled “good vs. evil” have all the right to stay there and to convince other people to join them. But if by fake news or hate speech, they mean opinions contrary to or critical of theirs -- then we have an obligation to set them straight.

An overwhelming majority of our people -- including those who voted for Miriam, Binay, and Poe -- have moved on. They usually provide us the more commonsensical, reasonable, and fair views. I dare say, many of those who voted for Duterte and Roxas have also closed the book on the 2016 elections.

What we have now are small blocs of die-hard Duterte supporters and cuckoo Robredo fans who try to strangle political discourse with their pathetic rivalry. They have troll armies, incendiary Facebook Pages, hyperaggressive Twitter accounts. Takedowns under the guise of “fighting fake news and hate speech” appear to be their newest addition to their arsenals.

Out of the rotting political carcasses of the “Dutertards” and “Yellowtards,” we could only hope that new thought-leaders rise like a phoenix. May they be patriotic, progressive, and truly democratic voices -- with practical and long-term alternatives, and a world view that’s hopeful and not cynical.

But for now, we should stop the takedowns and make sure the case of Senyora would be the last.

Follow me on Twitter @tonyocruz and check out my blog tonyocruz. com