High Status vs Low Status Opinions

As everyone should know by now, social media is the number one place for people to have their ego’s fed, especially for those who  espouse ‘high-status’ opinions on Twitter. Examples of this includes: journalists posting about how Boris Johnson is not pandering to them enough, Labour MP’s claiming the well known history of Africa is hidden, or Tankie’s with small accounts showing how well known business practises are evil and unique to capitalism. These posts exemplify ‘high-status’ opinions: generally left-wing, anti-British/West and anti-capitalist in nature. These are the types of things you see regularly on the twitter trending tab. ‘Low-status’ opinions, such as right-wing, pro-British/West and pro-capitalist, rarely make it to the trending tab.

Social media culture is very much skewed towards rewarding ‘high-status’ opinions and punishing, even by Twitter’s own hand, ‘low-status’ opinions. Twitter is well known for banning accounts for ‘low-status’ opinions while allowing high-status ones to remain active despite similar breaches of the terms of service, even allowing some to keep their checkmarks! An obvious example of this is Donald Trump who was banned for alleged calls to violence outside of twitter, conversely journalists calling for the Covington Kids to be put through a woodchipper kept their accounts. If this was where it ended I wouldn’t have that much of a problem as Twitter is a private business, but unfortunately the law seems to be following Twitter’s lead.

The law has been punishing social media communications for some time now, again it is ‘low-status' opinions or media which receives exclusive punishment. The most famous example of this was Count Dankula, fined £800 for saying “Gas the Jews” to his dog on YouTube, however there are many others too. The most recent being a man who was not only ordered to pay over £1,000 in fines but will also spend 8 weeks in jail for the crime of making a racially charged insult on Facebook towards black footballer Romaine Sawyers. Although the man claims autocorrect changed buffoon to baboon this shouldn’t even matter, as it is every British subject’s freeborn right to be at liberty to say what he wants as long as it does not infringe upon another person’s freeborn rights.

It should be obvious to every human being alive that an insult, racially motivated or otherwise, does not infringe on anyone’s freeborn rights, if it did the courts would be constantly packed with claimants. Despite this, it was deemed to be a ‘low-status’ opinion and an insult levelled against a celebrity. Our courts, who have a culture of supporting ‘high-status’ opinions, decided harsh punishment was needed. I need not go on about how this is a miscarriage of justice, but I do find the need to point out something that ought to be obvious a block button exists. If anyone insults you in a way you don’t like, on any social media, you can simply block that profile and never have to worry about it again.

This button exists for all people, including footballers, so instead of pressing charges for a crime that should not even exist, the footballer, or more likely their agent, could simply block the individual. There are a few reasons this does not happen though, firstly it’s a ‘low-status’ insult and must be punished. The narcissistic people need their ego fed and ignoring a chance to show how much you agree with ‘high-status’ opinions cannot be missed. Often, as is the case with a number of my linked examples, the police have to approach the alleged victim and ask, “Do you find this offensive and want to press charges?” If the police have to ask this then the answer is probably “no”, but as said before, it is not in their culture to let a chance for ‘high-status’ praise go! Even the judges get involved with this ‘high-status’ nonsense; the judge said of Simon Silwood’s insult that, “the offence was a ‘grossly offensive racial hate crime” which had impacted on all black professional footballers and wider society, putting it into a higher category of harm caused.” I must say I have my doubts about this given the post had to be actively sought out by a police officer whose role is as a “dedicated hate crime officer within a football unit” rather than being a direct report from the affected party.

So What's the Solution?

So not only are we wasting tax-payers money by jailing a man for a silly post for 8 weeks, but we are also funding a police force that dedicates officers to surf the web for ‘low-status’ posts that fewer than 20 people will ever see. The solution to this is to completely reform the Communications Act 2003, with a particular focus on section 127 and its infamous and ambiguous “grossly offensive” wording. As a result,  no police officer would be trawling the internet for ‘offensive’ content (as ‘low-status’ insults or content posted online would no longer be illegal) thus freeing them to be on the street, preventing the real crime like they are paid for.

My final suggestion concerns anyone who experiences content or comments that they would prefer not to see: use the block button, it is there to stop you seeing posts you don’t like from users you clearly don’t want to hear from. At present there exists  a privilege to not only ignore the block button but also to have publicly funded officers actively search for  posts which may cause people, typically ‘protected’ classes, to take offense and to prosecute the poster. This is obviously a moral wrong, as is posting racially charged insults, but two wrongs do not make a right as the old saying goes. We will never fully get rid of hate or racism from society but if you think infringing on the freeborn rights of a person is the solution; expect your efforts to be counterproductive. The block button is there, use it.