glorygloryeze
Jack Jull
Perhaps Samuel knows something about Barton that we don't and he is 'setting him a dare?' :-k
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Barton v Martin Samuel
- Thread starter Mike_T
- Start date
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
I agree with this.
The author isn't actually saying that Barton is gay. I know you have ridiculous libel laws in the UK, but to talk about lawsuits over this?
chicken_badge
Gudni Bergsson
It's not ridiculous to be outraged, no.
If someone publicly posted a message to suggest their was a serious relationship issue between me and my wife, I think I would have every right to sue for something which is hurtful and damaging to us, and our family. Barton is married and so to suggest or imply he is gay is to have the same affect. You can try and argue the toss about it if you like, whether Samuel is suggesting he is gay, or suggesting that Barton suggests he is gay but the fact is Samuel is making a clear link here, where there is no evidence at all.
Even if Barton wasn't married, if his relationships were shrouded in secrecy, Samuel has no right at all to probe his personal life like this and Barton has every right to protect his right to privacy.
OK, let's say that Samuel isn't actually stating Barton is gay but suggesting he just pretends he is and "comes out"... What sort of journalism is that, encouraging someone to lie and mislead the public to engineer social beliefs and acceptance? That's just morally corrupt, however you look at it.
Last edited:
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
Helpful? No, probably not... Shocking, from a journalist, in the daily mail. Hardly a reason for a lawsuit though.
Really? Talking about someone's sexuality in public is reason enough to get sued? I find that baffling...
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
I'm not really even accepting that the article suggested that Barton is gay.
You have every right in the world to be as offended or outraged as you please, of course. That doesn't make it a case for the courts. What you don't have a right to is to not be offended. Just because something is hurtful doesn't make it illegal.
Edit: Just to be clear, I said that I think your libel laws are ridiculous, not that it's ridiculous to be outraged.
Last edited:
chicken_badge
Gudni Bergsson
I disagree. If we need to be technical about it, any negative comment or action anyone takes can be defined as emotionally damaging, and would cause an element of distress, no matter how small.
The question isn't whether it's illegal, it's whether you would have enough evidence to pursue a case, and whether it would be worthwhile in what a judge is likely to do.
In this case, I do think Barton has enough to go on and I guess this is where we disagree. However, add into this situation the current climate, where public confidence in the media is at a low and any shoddy journalism is now making the writer very vulnerable, and I do think Barton could have a lot of success if he were to chase Samuel over this.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
So any negative comment can potentially be reason for a lawsuit? Just fudge off freedom of speech, it's been a good ride?
You should be careful, some of the things you say in this very thread could be seen as both distress causing and emotionally damaging to some journalists, like the one who wrote the article. In a public forum even... In writing... Do you have a good lawyer?
If, when being technical about it, just about anything could be reason for a lawsuit by your standards surely your standards aren't up to scratch.
Getting too late for a discussion on this for me, I'll leave it until tomorrow with a quote:
“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.”
Noam Chomsky
But did he do the Glasgow Empire on a wet Tuesday night?
chicken_badge
Gudni Bergsson
Freedom of speech is great, but it still has to be done responsibly. If it isn't, if its hurtful, then you have to face the consequences. It's part of the deal.
I don't think I've posted anything here which Samuel could find personally offensive. But yep, you are spot on with regards to public forums. A lot of people think they are immune on places like this, Twitter etc but they aren't. Lord McAlpine-Twitter could be a watershed moment and if not, it's coming. I'm not saying every negative comment online will result in action, but some will. More and more.
Last edited:
Modric THFC
Jimmy McCormick
I don't know how it is in any way emotionally damaging or hurtful.
All Samuel is saying is "wouldn't it be a hilarious if Barton turned gay for a bit for Creditability" (just like his other fake PR stuff he's done for Creditability).
He is an no point saying or suggesting Barton is gay.
All Samuel is saying is "wouldn't it be a hilarious if Barton turned gay for a bit for Creditability" (just like his other fake PR stuff he's done for Creditability).
He is an no point saying or suggesting Barton is gay.
thfcsteff
George Hunt
Just because you've got the power, that doesn't mean you've got the right.
I am a vigorous defender of freedom of speech, and I understand the point you're making, but I PERSONALLY think people who don't always think about what they're saying can do far more damage to the concept of freedom of speech than if they'd kept their traps shut.
We are in strange times my friend, and it behooves us to think a bit more carefully about the ramifications of what we're saying.
I think Samuel's an idiot.
He took a very important issue and double-trivialised it.
What's more, he gave Barton a shot at a lawsuit if Barton can eke one out.
A clusterfudge of problems there.
Chomsky is great, and the quote you offer is both true and excellent. And the premise (besides basic freedom) is surely that if people we despise are saying despicable things then everyone will realise and those people will be 'parriahs' of a sort...except increasingly, it appears as though the idiots are running the show.And yes, sadly, the litigious nature of the US has invaded British shores...it's sad.
That being said, what a shame if we find ourselves in a free speech debate over a flippant and cheap little story from Martin Samuel, eh?!!!
thfcsteff
George Hunt
Yeah but it wouldn't be 'hilarious' really would it? And it isn't 'hilarious' to see a 'top' sportswriter make a mockery of homosexuality/coming out in football. Whichever way you slice it, that's what Samuel is doing...
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Meh. Article did what articles are supposed to do; get people talking about issues. It could have been done more appropriately, but hey, it's Martin Samuel, I don't expect miracles. The important thing is that it's gotten enough attention to get people talking; about homosexuality in football,and about someone's right to the defense of their own sexuality. Samuel isn't mocking homsexuality in football ,far from it; he's using the idea that someone coming out would be given a lot of support and encouragement by the modern football community, and joking that Barton could use it to mask his past misdemeanours.
The more important thing is that people are talking about it again, which is important. Because it's damning that the last footballer who came out while in the national eye suffered massive, irreparable damage to his career, was the subject of lurid press speculation and harassment and eventually committed suicide. The country's most popular sport has that to hold up as its big, inclusive moment, and it's tragic that this is the case.
Justin Fashanu came out in 1990. 22 years ago. Who's followed him since then? No one. Not one English professional football player in the public eye, has come out. And considering what is now common knowledge about the commonality of homosexuality among the population, he can't have been the only gay footballer. So what's silencing the others? That's what should be talked about, not some constructed anger at a journalist taking an ill-judged pop at a misbehaving football star.
The more important thing is that people are talking about it again, which is important. Because it's damning that the last footballer who came out while in the national eye suffered massive, irreparable damage to his career, was the subject of lurid press speculation and harassment and eventually committed suicide. The country's most popular sport has that to hold up as its big, inclusive moment, and it's tragic that this is the case.
Justin Fashanu came out in 1990. 22 years ago. Who's followed him since then? No one. Not one English professional football player in the public eye, has come out. And considering what is now common knowledge about the commonality of homosexuality among the population, he can't have been the only gay footballer. So what's silencing the others? That's what should be talked about, not some constructed anger at a journalist taking an ill-judged pop at a misbehaving football star.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
I disagree completely about freedom of speech. It doesn't have to be done responsibly, idiots also have freedom of speech. There are some lines - racism, encouraging violence etc. The journo here didn't cross any such lines as far as I can see. Being "hurtful" is not crossing any reasonable line as far as I can understand freedom of speech. In fact, the ability to be hurtful, particularly then towards the establishment, the church, the king, government in general is actually one of the very things defended by freedom of speech. And yes, that freedom to be hurtful extends to idiots as well - up to some lines mentioned previously.
You said that he was: "....encouraging someone to lie and mislead the public to engineer social beliefs and acceptance? That's just morally corrupt, however you look at it." Personally I would find that a lot more insulting and hurtful than being called gay, orders of magnitude more insulting actually. You see the problem here, you seem to be of a different opinion as to what is insulting? To punish the speaker based on the emotions of the listener just doesn't work. That's not a line we can use.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
I'm not saying Samuel is right to do this, although I don't find what he said particularly inflammatory. There's a massive difference between something not being right and something being illegal or a valid reason to be sued over.
We live in strange times in deed steff. If, for the sake of argument I agree with all your descriptions of what Samuel did I would still defend his right to say that. People not wishing to be offended and wishing to silence critics or those they disagree with are the threat to our freedom of speech. And I think freedom of speech is one of the pillars of our society we can't do without. The point (for me) with the Chomsky quote is partly what you say, but more so that if you don't offer freedom of speech to those you despise then you don't offer it. From your viewpoint it seems that trying to silence those you despise is alright, that's horrendous in my opinion as it allows by extension those who despise you to try to have you silenced. For me it seems that you must accept that consequence, but that's also the end of free speech.
You say that it's the litigious nature of the US invading your shores, but when it comes to libel that's not the case at all. Protection of free speech in the US is (I'm guessing here) probably among the best in the world. While your laws are a bit of a disgrace. The US actually passed a law protecting their citizens from libel lawsuits in the UK and other countries. First article I found describing this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/aug/11/medialaw-barack-obama
As far as I understand in a British libel lawsuit the burden of proof is on the defendant. It's up to the person being sued to prove that they didn't do what the accuser is accusing them of.
I would suggest reading up on Singh vs the chiropractic association. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCA_v._Singh) The chiropractic association ended up pulling their suit, but only after it had cost Singh a lot of money to defend himself. Many private individuals would not have the resources to defend themselves against corporations wishing to silence critics. The chilling effects are most likely massive.
jts1882
Dean Richards
I'm amazed that so many people take the article at face value. Samuel is not on a moral crusade and outing Barton for the cause (its in the Mail, for GHod's sake). It's an attempt at satire, ridiculing Barton for his intellectual quest on twitter. He is not saying Barton is gay or that French people are half gay (that's a jibe at the intellectual bit ... seagulls, sardines etc). Barton is selected because his tough image, not because he is gay, and because he is an easy target.
Where the article is offensive, and perhaps fits the Mail's agenda better, is the trivialising of the issue of a footballer coming out gay. The one who did ended up dead, but never mind that ... wouldn't it be a hoot if Barton pretended to be gay. Oh how we would all laugh ...
Where the article is offensive, and perhaps fits the Mail's agenda better, is the trivialising of the issue of a footballer coming out gay. The one who did ended up dead, but never mind that ... wouldn't it be a hoot if Barton pretended to be gay. Oh how we would all laugh ...
Superted
Jonathan Woodgate
Nail. Head.
It's got nothing to do with Barton. What Samuel has now done is make it that much more difficult for any gay footballer to come out. Kudos.