Joey Barton

[ChicagoBlue]

Laws like this don't get made up just for the purpose of silencing people. There has been a huge debate for years about online abuse and the potential catastrophic consequences of that, and as such laws will have been brought in over time to deal with it. And there should be laws around malicious communications because it's no different to bullying. In fact, it could be argued that it's worse than one on one bullying if those behind it have hundreds of thousands of followers because the pile-on then becomes far more widespread.

And it all restricts free speech, with others telling you what you can and cannot say, under fear of prosecution.

 

[GortonBlue62]

And it all restricts free speech, with others telling you what you can and cannot say, under fear of prosecution.

In the UK we need a US style first ammendment...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

... instead we have the Malicious Communications Act which criminalises 'offensive' tweets (among other things).

Amazing that we are having to defend (and now fight to re-instate) basic rights that took centuries to establish.

Equally amazing that we have a large number of apologists for unwarranted state intervention in the lives of British people, many of them on here.

 

[Stephen230]

In the UK we need a US style first ammendment...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

... instead we have the Malicious Communications Act which criminalises 'offensive' tweets (among other things).

Amazing that we are having to defend (and now fight to re-instate) basic rights that took centuries to establish.

Equally amazing that we have a large number of apologists for unwarranted state intervention in the lives of British people, many of them on here.

You can argue all day about individual cases. But we all agree I’m sure in the most extreme cases that speaking words alone should be a criminal offence. I won’t bother giving an extreme example. I’m sure we can all use our imagination.

So really all you’re arguing about is where the line should be drawn between free speech and criminality.

 

[GortonBlue62]

You can argue all day about individual cases. But we all agree I’m sure in the most extreme cases that speaking words alone should be a criminal offence. I won’t bother giving an extreme example. I’m sure we can all use our imagination.

So really all you’re arguing about is where the line should be drawn between free speech and criminality.

Libel, slander, incitement to violence all adequately covered by the law. Rightly so.

I'm saying that beyond those parameters no limits that restrict so called hate speech or offence giving.

So I'm saying the state has no business mandating what private individuals can and cannot say.

 

[Stephen230]

Libel, slander, incitement to violence all adequately covered by the law. Rightly so.

I'm saying that beyond those parameters no limits that restrict so called hate speech or offence giving.

So I'm saying the state has no business mandating what private individuals can and cannot say.

But all those things are, or at least can be, just words.

So the state does mandate what individuals can and cannot say. It’s just a question of where you want the line drawn.

Totally, unrestricted freedom of speech has never been a thing in any civilised society.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

But all those things are, or at least can be, just words.

So the state does mandate what individuals can and cannot say. It’s just a question of where you want the line drawn.

Totally, unrestricted freedom of speech has never been a thing in any civilised society.

The grey area is Twitter/any social media platform.

Barton’s tweets go out to his millions of followers, which is more than it would go to in a print newspaper.

The press is regulated far more than social media platforms. This is where the current friction lies and where the laws probably need updating.

 

[Vienna_70]

The grey area is Twitter/any social media platform.

Barto’s tweets go out to his millions of followers, which is more than it would go to in a print newspaper.

The press is regulated far more than social media platforms. This is where the current friction lies and where the laws probably need updating.

And newspaper readership is falling, while social media use is rising.

 

[GortonBlue62]

But all those things are, or at least can be, just words.

So the state does mandate what individuals can and cannot say. It’s just a question of where you want the line drawn.

Totally, unrestricted freedom of speech has never been a thing in any civilised society.

Which is why I'm not advocating totally unrestricted freedom of speech.

My line, if you like, starts after the law has protected individuals from libel and slander and prohibited incitement to violence.

Any further attempts to restrict freedom of expression are simply censorship.

 

[Vienna_70]

He’s denied the charges in relation to his alleged posts to/about Aluko.

 

[youngbob]

See his podcast is going well. No new episodes for a month and the last one was Graham Linehan, which got a whopping 11,000 views. Can see this venture really worked out for him.