Joey Barton found guilty of sending offensive posts

[KS55]

The **** will get what he deserves but why is this in the politics forum?

Because Barton is Britains foremost philosopher and jurist and is the victim of a political witch hunt.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

It’s also worth pouting out,

You're such a fucking drama queen. Just say it with a straight face.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Ok, so any posting is at the risk of the person who posts it?

Should legacy media now have less vetting in line with social media?

I think so, yes. Musk could be held responsible for wider matters, I guess, matters of corporate policy, or a failure to act after the event, but on a platform such as X individual posts have got to be down to the person who posted it, at least as the law stands as I understand it.

I think social media should be regulated far more stringently, but that is a separate point.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The **** will get what he deserves but why is this in the politics forum?

The issue of free speech, and where it begins and ends, is 100% a matter of political debate.

 

[KS55]

It’s not appropriate to send people to prison for something like this unless it’s off the scale and this certainly wasn’t that.

Other than for violence and the safety needs of the public, prison is a most inappropriate way of dealing with offences. Proper community sentences would be twice as effective at half the cost. A year in prison costs more than a year at Eton.
In a decent system Barton would spend all his leisure time for the next two years decorating for old people, clearing eyesore public sites, organising football for inner city kids etc etc. He might even find a new useful calling while thus engaged.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Because Barton is Britains foremost philosopher and jurist and is the victim of a political witch hunt.

If Barton was caught red-handed stealing from the local Conservative Club, he'd claim in court it was a politically-inspired prosecution

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Other than for violence, prison is a most inappropriate way of dealing with offences. Proper community sentences would be twice as effective at half the cost. A year in prison costs more than a year at Eton.

And the wrong'uns turned out by Eton have better accents.

 

[citizen_maine]

Other than for violence, prison is a most inappropriate way of dealing with offences. Proper community sentences would be twice as effective at half the cost. A year in prison costs more than a year at Eton.

and you probably get bummed less

 

[Hgblue2]

My point not being a political one, but rather to underline there is nothing new about this law, because you were posting in terms it being a new legal development. And it plainly isn’t.

What's new is social media and the number of people being targeted for their speech.

I'm uncomfortable with the authoritarian direction of travel in this country, where precious police time and resources are being devoted to policing speech.

It's not like there aren't other more pressing issues of concern to the public.

In my view, the safest, and most aligned with British values, solution is to protect all speech unless it crosses the line into incitement.

In other words, in this country you have the freedom to be a twat, this doesn't mean freedom from consequences, but it does mean freedom from repercussions from the state.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

In my view, the safest, and most aligned with British values, solution is to protect all speech unless it crosses the line into incitement.

Would that include the online mocking of parents who had just lost a child to cancer?

 

[ali benarbia's studs]

Political forum, the fucker s more moronic than I........

 

[Hgblue2]

Would that include the online mocking of parents who had just lost a child to cancer?

Definitely twattish, but not criminal behaviour, so not a police matter imo. I'd expect such a person to face huge societal repercussions though.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

I think you can argue the toss about where the line is drawn and everybody will have a different opinion. If you followed somebody down the street shouting "paedophile" at them, most would agree that is harassment, but if you do it on the world's biggest social media platform with millions of people looking on, then many argue that's just free speech. I'd argue, what's the difference? The internet has made abusing people in uncivil and public ways almost a spectator sport. Even if we agree it maybe shouldn't be "illegal" except in extreme cases, it's a damning indictment of what the world has become and what people see as acceptable behaviour these days.

That said, there will always be those who think words are words regardless of how much harm, incitement or trauma the words might cause. I don't agree - think Alex Jones and the Sandy Hook victims' families - I don't want to live in a society where that is taken as normal and acceptable.

The most worrying thing that's come out of all this are the people saying "Oh, I saw him on his podcast and he seems like an alright bloke." For fuck's sake. How easy is it for people with a history of being consistently abusive to people, physically and verbally, to launder their reputation by doing a fucking podcast? People are so easily swayed by utter cunts that it boggles my mind. If Mussolini was still around, his podcast would be doing a roaring trade.

 

[BlueHammer85]

One of many nowadays spewing hate and crossing the line just to get more clicks and views for money - well done to the Jury.

 

[BridgyDids]

In other words, in this country you have the freedom to be a twat, this doesn't mean freedom from consequences, but it does mean freedom from repercussions from the state.

So what consequences should there be then?

When is it acceptable for the state to step in?

Would you think that petty crime (like pickpocketing) should be similar, as it’s only affecting individuals? What about flashing?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Definitely twattish, but not criminal behaviour, so not a police matter imo. I'd expect such a person to face huge societal repercussions though.

I think it’s correct to say that where the requisite intent is proven it’s currently criminal behaviour as it’s difficult to imagine a jury finding such output to be anything other than grossly offensive, so presumably you think the 1988 Act should be repealed or amended, which is fair enough, but it’s difficult for me to imagine that step making the divisions in society anything other than significantly greater if it develops that there are no criminal sanctions at all for the most egregious, nasty and malicious online output.

Ultimately all laws represent restrictions on the freedom of individuals (and organisations) to act as they wish. They are a balancing exercise between the need to restrict certain behaviour and the freedoms we all cherish. If the maximum sentence for this offence was, say, seven years, then I would say that balancing exercise was out of kilter, but likewise if it was simply a financial penalty then I’d say the same but for different reasons.

I think two years maximum sentence represents a sufficient deterrent without being too draconian, and is notably the maximum sentence that a suspended sentence can be imposed. I’d say that’s about right in circumstances where people post in the most egregious terms and it can be proven, so that a jury is sure, that the sender intended to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient. This element expressly takes it beyond the realms of mere free speech, as if no such intention is proven then no offence has taken place under this Act.

I feel, in the current climate, repealing this law, which you appear to be suggesting, would make the online arena even more toxic, which is surely contrary to the public interest, and would certainly send out the wrong signal to those who enjoy causing misery to others online.

 

[DrBlueBob]

Definitely twattish, but not criminal behaviour, so not a police matter imo. I'd expect such a person to face huge societal repercussions though.

So street justice rather than through the courts?

 

[hilts]

Its actually a really tough question this freedom of speech stuff and I don’t think we will get a decent solution from you lot of noncey fucking twats.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Yet again I find myself totally at odds with the consensus on here. I believe the legal system should not be getting involved in issues of free speech.

Barton's social media posts were distasteful but should not be illegal imo.

I'd be in support of legislation to establish this in law so that nobody faces the prospect of jail time for social media posts in this country.

Only exception would be incitement to violence.

For me its a showbiz trial. Where they get a higher level of policing and justice than the rest of us. Those things are said every minute on X and other social media, nothing gets done unless it is someone famous. I think that's generally true?

 

[kippaxwarrior]

from the court reporting on the case - illustrates what he is like

‘At one point during cross examination, the prosecutor Peter Wright KC called Barton’s explanations “nonsense”, to which the former player responded by asking: “Are you calling me a nonce?” Wright in turn responded: “No, nonsense.”’

That exchange reminds me of the Brass Eye episode where Phil Collins (RIP) is wearing a Nonce Sense t-shirt