A hierarchy of abuse
The report that Shane Jones and his wife was physically assailed at Auckland Airport had me reflect how much more serious it is to have someone abuse you in person, rather than merely online.
It led to this post, which I had been ruminating on for a while. It is my attempt to they and work out a sort of hierarchy from bad to worst of abuse against public figures.
- Online
- (A) Generally abusive language about an MP
- (B) Says they wished an MP was harmed
- (C) Says they will harm or the MP
- Direct Electronic Message
- (A) Generally abusive language about an MP
- (B) Says they wished an MP was harmed
- (C) Says they will harm the MP
- Phone
- (A) Generally abusive language about an MP
- (B) Says they wished an MP was harmed
- (C) Says they will harm the MP
- In person
- (A) Generally abusive language about an MP
- (B) Says they wished an MP was harmed
- (C) Says they will harm the MP
- (D) Actually harms MP
Now I’m not an MP but I’ve had 3C (he phoned me multiple times threatening to kill me) and that was traumatic.
What happened to James Shaw and Shane Jones is very serious. Its one thing to have online abuse, but quite another when someone physically assaults you or your spouse.
There is quite a difference between a 1B and say a 2C. Someone saying you deserve to die (while abhorrent) is not a death threat. Saying you will kill them is a death threat. I have reported to authorities messages in category 1C.
And again while all of it is bad, there is a difference between someone mouthing off on social media, and someone actually directly sending the message to you through a DM or an e-mail etc.
There is not an MP above who hasn’t had a 1A or 2A and sadly most would have had a 1B or 2B. If they were all reported, the Police would need those 500 extra police officers. It’s really category C that needs intervention – when people say they will themselves cause harm.
The post A hierarchy of abuse first appeared on Kiwiblog.