Joey Barton

[GortonBlue62]

The fact is that you or I don’t get to decide where the line is on this. That comes down to the law, and the police and CPS have decided that there is enough of a case for Barton to answer.

Agreed. No line. The Police and CPS are presumably prosecuting him under the 'malicious comunications' law. There should be no such law. Existing legislation will quite rightly deal with slander and libel, but offending someone? I don't think so.

 

[Vienna_70]

It wasn't because he's Nigerian

He was found guilty of being a financial crook when he was a senator. Look it up if you want.

See this is a problem, your brain automatically assumes he was calling him a crook because he's Nigerian when in fact he was found guilty of being a crook....

Your mind Is the one that connected the Nigerian and crook parts and missed out of the part that he actually was a crook, so I think you need readjust how you think if you're automatically connecting the two thing without the facts.

So now we can't be honest? It racist to say a fact about someone past because they're Nigerian?

Ridiculous

You’re right. I didn’t know that Eluko's father had been convicted of being a financial crook, but that was the way it read in Barton's tweet.

 

[GortonBlue62]

Wonder what she thinks of daddy when he beats up mummy?

Violence, with the possible exception of self defence, is never acceptable.

My abhorrence of Joey Barton stems from his violent past. The next time he shows his true colours and thumps someone I hope a long custodial sentence is the outcome.

You seem to think a smack in the face and a strongly expressed offensive opinion are equivalent. They're not.

Defending freedom of speech means that occasionally you have to hold your nose and defend that right for people you loathe and opinions you detest.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Violence, with the possible exception of self defence, is never acceptable.

My abhorrence of Joey Barton stems from his violent past. The next time he shows his true colours and thumps someone I hope a long custodial sentence is the outcome.

You seem to think a smack in the face and a strongly expressed offensive opinion are equivalent. They're not.

Defending freedom of speech means that occasionally you have to hold your nose and defend that right for people you loathe and opinions you detest.

I didn't say that. Barton crossed the line on numerous occasions with Aluko. It's not just criticism it was harassment. He also posted falsehoods, she didn't go to a private school and her dad didn't have three Rolls Royces.

It was you that mentioned Barton's daughter, you don't pretend that he's a kind family man. He's also someone who is due to go to a retrial for assaulting the mother of his children.

Joey Barton to face new trial over allegation he assaulted wife

The former footballer is accused of assaulting Georgia Barton in a drunken row outside their home.

www.google.com

 

[BlueTG]

Is having an opinion about someone's ability illegal though? Is using a retweed function on a social media app illegal?

This is the issue here. We all know he's a knobhead, but being charged with what he's doing seems wrong to me. Having an opinion on someone's abililty is not illegal, retweeting is not illegal. He's not told anyone to go after her directly. He just has an opinion that some agree with and some don't. He may be heavy handed in how he let's his opinion known but it doesn't make it illegal.

By charging someone for this, it keeps lowering the bar on people's freedom to have an opinion, no matter how much you dislike it.

It's not a really about Joey Barton, we all know he's a dickhead. It's about arresting people for having an opinion on social media. It might be OK in some people's eyes to do it to Barton because he's a knob, but they won't be saying that in future when its fair game for anyone to be arrested because they aired an opinion on social media. Is that the world we wanna live in? I don't. It's not about Barton specifically. It's the precedent it sets that I don't like.

We all know Martin Niemöller's "first they came for..." quote, and if you don't, then look it up. That's the path society today is heading down. That may sound like too much of a serious claim because we're on the topic of a daft ex footy player and a daft pundit, but this is just one small example of the way things are heading.

Arresting people for an opinion? Really? I come from a family that grew up in countries like that. Nobody needs that here.

When was he arrested? Except for that time for battering his wife, or battering Dabo, or battering that taxi driver.

 

[M18CTID]

Agreed. No line. The Police and CPS are presumably prosecuting him under the 'malicious comunications' law. There should be no such law. Existing legislation will quite rightly deal with slander and libel, but offending someone? I don't think so.

So you don’t think there should be any laws around online hate? Despite the fact that some people on the receiving end of such abuse have committed suicide?

 

[M18CTID]

There’s a difference between some kid in his bedroom slagging someone off to a high profile celeb with millions of followers endlessly and constantly baiting 1 individual (2 if you count Vine) … it’s the constant barrage that needs to be addressed more than the context of the tweets. Turning a blind eye and saying it’s nothing is the wrong attitude.
Bullying and harassment deserves punishment.

Spot on. Victims of online hate have been known to take their own lives, yet we have people on here saying that there should be no laws around it.

I’m not going to deny that certain things regarding political correctness have gone a bit too far these days but the fact is that no **** has a right to dictate to others what they should and shouldn’t get offended about.

Also, you can bet that these “Freedom of speech” merchants wouldn’t be quite as vocal if a paedophile was stood at the end of their street with a megaphone telling passers-by that it’s ok to sexually abuse kids.

 

[Cellarite]

Spot on. Victims of online hate have been known to take their own lives, yet we have people on here saying that there should be no laws around it.

I’m not going to deny that certain things regarding political correctness have gone a bit too far these days but the fact is that no **** has a right to dictate to others what they should and shouldn’t get offended about.

Also, you can bet that these “Freedom of speech” merchants wouldn’t be quite as vocal if a paedophile was stood at the end of their street with a megaphone telling passers-by that it’s ok to sexually abuse kids.

That's a ridiculous comparison. Claiming that something which is illegal is "ok" isn't a matter of opinion. It's still illegal regardless of someone's opinion.

 

[mattcity5]

That's a ridiculous comparison. Claiming that something which is illegal is "ok" isn't a matter of opinion. It's still illegal regardless of someone's opinion.

True, you can reach way more people through a social media platform, especially with a large following.

 

[Cellarite]

True, you can reach way more people through a social media platform, especially with a large following.

That's not the point I'm making though is it? M18CTID is comparing Joey Barton posting on Twitter that he thinks Eni Aluko is a shit pundit with a paedophile encouraging more people to be sex offenders.

This isn't too far from comparing one of us stating that Kalvin Phillips had a poor game on the post match thread to Anjem Choudery directing terrorism. He didn't do anything, just gave his opinion.

 

[M18CTID]

That's a ridiculous comparison. Claiming that something which is illegal is "ok" isn't a matter of opinion. It's still illegal regardless of someone's opinion.

Nothing ridiculous about it with regards to the point I was making. Oh, and online hate is also illegal so that’s not ok either despite what the Free speech bellends try to claim.

 

[M18CTID]

That's not the point I'm making though is it? M18CTID is comparing Joey Barton posting on Twitter that he thinks Eni Aluko is a shit pundit with a paedophile encouraging more people to be sex offenders.

This isn't too far from comparing one of us stating that Kalvin Phillips had a poor game on the post match thread to Anjem Choudery directing terrorism. He didn't do anything, just gave his opinion.

And it’s been pointed out numerous times that Barton knew exactly what he was doing - that he knew that it would drum up support amongst all his knuckle-dragging followers. Why the fuck do you think he’s been investigated and charged for it?

 

[mattcity5]

That's not the point I'm making though is it? M18CTID is comparing Joey Barton posting on Twitter that he thinks Eni Aluko is a shit pundit with a paedophile encouraging more people to be sex offenders.

This isn't too far from comparing one of us stating that Kalvin Phillips had a poor game on the post match thread to Anjem Choudery directing terrorism. He didn't do anything, just gave his opinion.

No, I know it isn't what you were saying. @M18CTID made a bit of an exaggerated comparison to make his point though, and you just picked up on the exaggeration.

His point stands. People's lives can be made miserable because of harassment and abuse on social media, to the point sometimes, where the abused commits suicide. It is much more wide-ranging and inescapable for people, than somebody shouting abuse on the streets, and we wouldn't put up with that, but there are people in this thread suggesting it's okay to do it on social media because "freedom of speech".

There needs to be a new online law of "freedom to not suffer from cuntish behaviour".

 

[Cellarite]

Nothing ridiculous about it with regards to the point I was making. Oh, and online hate is also illegal so that’s not ok either despite what the Free speech bellends try to claim.

It really is a ridiculous comparison and if you can't see the difference between tweeting that a pundit is crap at their job and standing on a street corner encouraging paedophilia, I don't know what to say.

 

[Cellarite]

And it’s been pointed out numerous times that Barton knew exactly what he was doing - that he knew that it would drum up support amongst all his knuckle-dragging followers. Why the fuck do you think he’s been investigated and charged for it?

I guess any case will decide whether he crossed a line or not. I do believe he knew what he was doing but is the amount of followers he has on X the deciding factor here? Would I be ok to spout the same things about Eni Aluko because my two lads and their two mates are the only people that follow me?

I haven't once said that I support Barton in his actions, just that your comparison was ridiculous. You can get as aggressive as you like but that won't change.

 

[M18CTID]

It really is a ridiculous comparison and if you can't see the difference between tweeting that a pundit is crap at their job and standing on a street corner encouraging paedophilia, I don't know what to say.

He didn't just tweet that she was crap at her job though did he? If he did, then he wouldn't have been charged with "malicious communications". And anyone with half a fucking brain cell can see that there was malicious intent in his tweets.

And yes, on the face of it there was a big difference with the example I used but if online hate leads to someone committing suicide - as has happened in the past and is one of the reasons why we have such laws governing it these days - then that big difference doesn't become much of a difference at all.

 

[mattcity5]

I guess any case will decide whether he crossed a line or not. I do believe he knew what he was doing but is the amount of followers he has on X the deciding factor here? Would I be ok to spout the same things about Eni Aluko because my two lads and their two mates are the only people that follow me?

I haven't once said that I support Barton in his actions, just that your comparison was ridiculous. You can get as aggressive as you like but that won't change.

There is a difference between shouting on a street corner and doing it online with thousand/millions (?) of followers.

Obviously the personal one may be worse at the time, but when it's done it's done (unless somebody records it and posts it online!), however bad.

When somebody with a large following online does it, there may not be the initial hurt, but there is a continuous echo caused by everyone continuously retweeting/replying/forwarding that message. That can go on for months even.

I don't know what the answer is, should people not be arseholes? Yes. Should people have thicker skin? Sometimes, yes. But we're in a day and age where people are told to consider each other's mental health, and we don't know the state of mind of the person on the receiving end at any time.

 

[M18CTID]

I guess any case will decide whether he crossed a line or not. I do believe he knew what he was doing but is the amount of followers he has on X the deciding factor here? Would I be ok to spout the same things about Eni Aluko because my two lads and their two mates are the only people that follow me?

I haven't once said that I support Barton in his actions, just that your comparison was ridiculous. You can get as aggressive as you like but that won't change.

Technically, no you wouldn't but the chances are that you'd get away with it because you don't have the reach that Barton has for it to get brought to the attention of the authorities. Not that everyone with next to no followers tweeting offensive shite from their bedroom gets away with that kind of shit. This was 12 years ago by the way:

Tom Daley Twitter abuse: Boy given warning and bailed

A teenager arrested over a malicious tweet sent to Team GB diver Tom Daley is given a warning by police.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[thismeansfour]

If he actually just said she is shite at her job (which she is) nothing would have happened. He pushed it too far and why he is now being charged. Happy for Barton to be held accountable once more, not happy though that she may now get thrown in our faces even more because of this, despite the fact she can not do her job as a pundit properly. She isn't lone, there are many male, female, black, white pundits that are garbage too. Too much football being on TV has led us to needing bums on seats regardless of their credentials.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Nothing ridiculous about it with regards to the point I was making. Oh, and online hate is also illegal so that’s not ok either despite what the Free speech bellends try to claim.

Free speech bellends?

Define “hate speech” and please be specific.

And, no-one is saying it’s OK to do anything illegal. Rather, a few people seem to be saying words shouldn’t be illegal. They can be disgusting, abhorrent, unseemly, etc., but illegal?

Again, who decides and why? Be careful what you wish for!