Freedom of Self-Expression Is Fine, but Public Space Still Requires Boundaries

Recently, I came across a series of self-presentational videos posted by a middle-aged man online. They triggered a great deal of debate.

Some people defended him, saying that he was simply being authentic and living without worrying about other people’s opinions. Others found many of his habits unpleasant. He smacked his lips while eating, wore shorts and slippers while drinking wine, shook his leg constantly, and behaved very casually, while at the same time trying to present an image of refinement and sophistication. The result felt deeply inconsistent.

In my view, the issue is not whether he has money, and it is not whether he has the right to present himself online.

Everyone is entitled to live in their own way and to believe that they are living well. There is no single universal standard for happiness. A wealthy person may feel satisfied, an ordinary worker may feel satisfied, and even a beggar may believe that life is treating them well. These are personal judgements and do not need to be measured by one absolute standard.

The real issue begins when private life is placed on social media. At that point, it is no longer entirely private. It has entered a public space.

At home, behind closed doors, a person can wear slippers, shake their leg, eat noisily, or drink red wine while chewing on a chicken leg. That is personal freedom. Other people do not need to interfere. But once these moments are deliberately filmed and published online, they become a form of public expression.

Public expression means that other people will see it, and it also means that other people will respond to it. A person can certainly say, “This is my account, and I can post whatever I like.” That is true, but it is only half of the truth.

You have the freedom to express yourself, and others have the freedom to judge what you present. Once you enter social media, you enter an environment of interaction. Every public environment carries some basic expectations of manners, boundaries and shared understanding. It cannot be treated exactly like a private room with the door closed.

Taste may not have an absolute standard, but that does not mean that it has no standard at all.

People have different backgrounds, experiences and preferences, so naturally they will disagree about what looks attractive, appropriate or natural. That is normal. A farmer is not necessarily unattractive, and a city dweller is not necessarily elegant. Wealth does not automatically create taste, and expensive clothing does not automatically create dignity. The real problem is not social identity. It is misalignment.

When a person tries to project elegance, refinement and status while repeatedly displaying poor manners and careless behaviour, the two images conflict. The result becomes an awkward hybrid. It does not look genuinely wealthy, genuinely tasteful, or naturally relaxed. The problem is not simplicity, and it is not flamboyance. The problem is that the whole presentation lacks coherence.

What makes this more serious is that the person may be completely unaware of the mismatch.

From a psychological point of view, this is not unusual. Many human actions are not the result of careful reflection. They are also shaped by psychological needs. People want recognition, attention and confirmation that they are living well. They may also use a particular image to reassure themselves of their own value. These needs are not inherently shameful. They exist, in different forms, in almost everyone.

The difficulty is that a person may not clearly understand which need is driving the behaviour. Someone may believe that they are merely sharing daily life while also seeking approval. They may believe that they are simply expressing individuality while also protecting a preferred image of themselves. This does not necessarily involve deliberate deception. More often, self-understanding has not caught up with behaviour.

This may also explain why some people respond to repeated criticism by concluding that others are jealous, narrow-minded or unqualified to judge them. When criticism challenges not only a particular habit but also a way of maintaining self-esteem, the natural response is often defensive.

Social media creates another problem as well.

Everyone can choose what they want to show in public. Some people post large meals every day. Some repeatedly display their dancing. Others share singing, piano playing, exercise, travel, or a particular lifestyle. All of these things may be genuine, but they may still represent only a very small part of a person’s life.

The audience does not see the whole person. It sees the particular side that has been selected and repeated. When the same side appears over and over again, people may begin to treat it as the person’s main condition, or even as the whole person.

Someone may only occasionally enjoy an elaborate meal, but if every post shows a large table of food, the audience may come to see that person as living mainly around eating. Someone may simply enjoy dancing, but if every post presents a similar dance, others may assume that this is the centre of that person’s life and interests. A person may repeatedly display a talent in order to share something they do well, yet the long-term effect may be to suggest that there is little else in their life.

This is not always a deliberate misunderstanding by the audience, nor is it entirely the fault of the person posting. It is partly a form of cognitive compression created by social media itself. A real person is complex and multidimensional. They have work, family, interests, ideas, weaknesses, and ordinary or even boring parts of life. But over time, people tend to post the side that is easiest to present, most likely to receive attention, or most consistent with the image they want to maintain. Eventually, the selected fragment begins to replace the whole.

A thoughtful person therefore considers not only what they want to show, but also what stable impression repeated content will create in other people’s minds. Freedom of expression does not mean that the audience’s experience is irrelevant. Nor does it mean that someone can repeat one narrow type of content indefinitely and still expect others to imagine a rich and complete person behind it.

No one is obliged to reveal their entire life, and there is no need to perform artificial variety merely to appear well rounded. Still, showing different sides of one’s life from time to time can create a more truthful and three-dimensional picture. Otherwise, even if the real life behind the account is not narrow, a highly repetitive form of self-presentation may create an impression of rigidity, obsession, or excessive attachment to one particular image.

All of us have limitations. We do not always know how we appear to others. We may overestimate the effect of our self-presentation, and we may become self-satisfied. These tendencies are difficult to avoid entirely. What matters is whether a person still has the capacity for self-reflection.

Maturity does not mean always insisting on being oneself, nor does it mean changing immediately whenever criticism appears. It means being able to question one’s own judgement, to consider another person’s perspective, and to think seriously about why a particular form of expression makes others uncomfortable. There is nothing wrong with holding on to one’s individuality, but that cannot mean treating one’s own perspective as the only one that matters.

Freedom is not the rejection of all feedback. Nor does freedom mean that anything can be placed into a public space while everyone else is expected to accept it without comment.

A genuinely cultivated person is not merely someone who dares to display themselves. It is someone who understands what they are displaying and how that image enters the lives of other people. Such a person may continue to live in their own way, but they will not lose respect for the public space they have chosen to enter.

The less clearly a person understands their own psychological needs, the more easily those needs can drive behaviour while appearing to be entirely free choice. Real freedom is not only the ability to do what one wants. It also includes the ability to see why one wants to do it.