Premier League investigation unit

It’s an interesting one for sure. The dynamics of the PL investigation unit, Newcastle (a Saudi owned club of all clubs) being the one to actually ban her, the fact she’s obviously a bit of a ****.

I agree with most that if this story is what it purports to be then it seems ripe for challenge that a club can cherry pick people to ban based on what they’ve posted on social media. Especially when a crime hasn’t (yet) been committed.

That said, I am wary about the problems with social media (@youngbob did a great job of highlighting them). It is a different situation so I’m not comparing the two but you look at the dogs abuse and racism Saka and Rashford got on social media after the Euros. If I remember correctly, plenty on here were advocating stadium bans for fans who were caught participating in that. The reason I bring this up is to suggest that there are scenarios where people think penalties like this for social media posts might be acceptable (I know not all would agree).

It seems the line for that is somewhere between “unhinged transphobe ranting on her own watch” and “sending monkey emojis to black footballers”. I guess it’s similar to finding the difference between earnest belief and hate speech. It’s an absolutely impossible line to tread if you ask me, but we have legal processes to decide these things, and I suspect Newcastle have fallen on the wrong side of it in this case.
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
It’s an interesting one for sure. The dynamics of the PL investigation unit, Newcastle (a Saudi owned club of all clubs) being the one to actually ban her, the fact she’s obviously a bit of a ****.

I agree with most that if this story is what it purports to be then it seems ripe for challenge that a club can cherry pick people to ban based on what they’ve posted on social media. Especially when a crime hasn’t (yet) been committed.

That said, I am wary about the problems with social media (@youngbob did a great job of highlighting them). It is a different situation so I’m not comparing the two but you look at the dogs abuse and racism Saka and Rashford got on social media after the Euros. If I remember correctly, plenty on here were advocating stadium bans for fans who were caught participating in that. The reason I bring this up is to suggest that there are scenarios where people think penalties like this for social media posts might be acceptable (I know not all would agree).

It seems the line for that is somewhere between “unhinged transphobe ranting on her own watch” and “sending monkey emojis to black footballers”. I guess it’s similar to finding the difference between earnest belief and hate speech. It’s an absolutely impossible line to tread if you ask me, but we have legal processes to decide these things, and I suspect Newcastle have fallen on the wrong side of it in this case.
Click to expand...
You cant ban people for being a ****, if you could there would be about 4 people on this forum (if im being generous) and about 6 people at the match including the players, bruno fernandes wouldnt be able to leave his house.
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
It’s an interesting one for sure. The dynamics of the PL investigation unit, Newcastle (a Saudi owned club of all clubs) being the one to actually ban her, the fact she’s obviously a bit of a ****.

I agree with most that if this story is what it purports to be then it seems ripe for challenge that a club can cherry pick people to ban based on what they’ve posted on social media. Especially when a crime hasn’t (yet) been committed.

That said, I am wary about the problems with social media (@youngbob did a great job of highlighting them). It is a different situation so I’m not comparing the two but you look at the dogs abuse and racism Saka and Rashford got on social media after the Euros. If I remember correctly, plenty on here were advocating stadium bans for fans who were caught participating in that. The reason I bring this up is to suggest that there are scenarios where people think penalties like this for social media posts might be acceptable (I know not all would agree).

It seems the line for that is somewhere between “unhinged transphobe ranting on her own watch” and “sending monkey emojis to black footballers”. I guess it’s similar to finding the difference between earnest belief and hate speech. It’s an absolutely impossible line to tread if you ask me, but we have legal processes to decide these things, and I suspect Newcastle have fallen on the wrong side of it in this case.
Click to expand...
I am not one for giving up Freedom of Speech just so we can stop a few thugs from being thugs. Or a few racists from being racist. FoS is THE most important thing in this country right now especially since we are now all trackable, traceable, and live our lives on the internet.

People that complain they get abuse on twitter or FB, just fkin leave it, dont look. You wouldnt go walking into a place where people hate you so why consume it on the internet? Stop forcing this curtailment of our freedoms just so you can have only praise on social media!

And get this, if you cant say for example "Trans women are not women" on the internet then in real life it would be a crime too. Down the pub, at the shops, someone somewhere can report it, have CCTV footage, maybe recorded it,. The police can check your socials too, then build a case. Thats heading towards what Russia are.

The answer we've got to come to is that "If you dont like it dont consume it" and only that way can we all live without the fear of big brother.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
I am not one for giving up Freedom of Speech just so we can stop a few thugs from being thugs. Or a few racists from being racist. FoS is THE most important thing in this country right now especially since we are now all trackable, traceable, and live our lives on the internet.

People that complain they get abuse on twitter or FB, just fkin leave it, dont look. You wouldnt go walking into a place where people hate you so why consume it on the internet? Stop forcing this curtailment of our freedoms just so you can have only praise on social media!

And get this, if you cant say for example "Trans women are not women" on the internet then in real life it would be a crime too. Down the pub, at the shops, someone somewhere can report it, have CCTV footage, maybe recorded it,. The police can check your socials too, then build a case. Thats heading towards what Russia are.

The answer we've got to come to is that "If you dont like it dont consume it" and only that way can we all live without the fear of big brother.
Click to expand...

To be clear, I’m not advocating for that either - I’m just somewhat mischievously playing devil’s advocate in asking whether a line does exist and where people would draw it. Some people will think there is no line at all to be drawn.

I personally think there’s a few things that freedom of speech rightfully doesn’t cover. The kind of speech that endangers lives, death threats, harassment - these are things with legal boundaries. I don’t think any of those seem to be the case in this particular situation. It doesn’t rise to that kind of standard.

Plus you’ve got two issues interlocking here. I think it’s immensely problematic that a private company would choose this approach. Whether it’s legal or not for them to self-police in this way is a whole other question.

You’ve got the interests of freedom of expression, and you’ve got the interests of freedom of private companies to decide on what they permit basically warring with one another. I’m not learned enough to know where the boundaries lie in either of these matters but my inclination is generally to side with people over corporations unless there’s a really compelling reason not to.

All I’ll say is in this particular situation, the outcome seems to be wrong. Which I think is something nearly everybody here is in agreement with.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
I am not one for giving up Freedom of Speech just so we can stop a few thugs from being thugs. Or a few racists from being racist. FoS is THE most important thing in this country right now especially since we are now all trackable, traceable, and live our lives on the internet.

People that complain they get abuse on twitter or FB, just fkin leave it, dont look. You wouldnt go walking into a place where people hate you so why consume it on the internet? Stop forcing this curtailment of our freedoms just so you can have only praise on social media!

And get this, if you cant say for example "Trans women are not women" on the internet then in real life it would be a crime too. Down the pub, at the shops, someone somewhere can report it, have CCTV footage, maybe recorded it,. The police can check your socials too, then build a case. Thats heading towards what Russia are.

The answer we've got to come to is that "If you dont like it dont consume it" and only that way can we all live without the fear of big brother.
Click to expand...

The thing with this case is the police investigated and interviewed her and decided there was no crime committed. As far as I'm aware when she has gone to watch Newcastle she hasn't ever been reported or ejected from the ground. Is this Newcastle, given who their owners are, trying to prove they're not discriminatory against certain groups?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.