Barton v Martin Samuel

[NLS]

Contrary to most people I actually like Joey Barton. I know he did a few naughty things when he was younger but how many 'working class' (WC) blokes (like me) have not done things that they regret.

He gets mocked by the 'middle class' (MC) because he is interested in subjects that normally pass us (the working class) by. As i have got older I have developed a great interest in classical music and art to the point i can even answer questions about them on University Challenge......... I have done fairly well in life so consequently people tell me that I must be MC to have those interests etc. They don't like the thought that I can have such interests and still be WC as it threatens their own position within society.

B****cks to all that - I still play football like a yob and often talk about the great days when we took the North Bank two years running.

I get really upset when people suggest I must be MC and feel it is an insult to my hard working, decent, honest parents who instilled me with good values. And that why I like Barton because he upsets them!!

 

[Northern Monkey]

So when is the public lynching and disembowling of Samuel?

 

[southstand1882]

So when is the public lynching and disembowling of Samuel?

Jesus. Can you imagine the stench?

 

[chicken_badge]

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.

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 ...

braineclipse - I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here because we are in danger of going in circles, as if I'm not mistaken we are both of different opinion of how offensive the action that Samuel has taken is. I do struggle with the notion that freedom of speech is under threat in a case like this.... a battle for freedom of speech is what we saw in Nazi Germany, currently in China and perhaps to a point within our prisons, this is where a right of expression may be limited in our country. But if Samuel got sacked over this article it is not, to me, an example of censorship. Its an example of him simply not being good at his job, which is to write and commentate on news with truth.

Freedom of speech means you have the freedom to express yourself and this can work against a system of fair sanctions if what you say is unnacceptable to one or more individuals. We aren't in North Korea, we aren't in Stalin's Russia, we are in the free press of the UK and therefore Samuel could and should expect fair sanctions.

I've quoted jts here as well though as I think this maybe highlights the problem with the article to me. Samuel may well have a different, more subtle message behind his piece. But at face value the majority of people won't read it that way - and let's face it, how many readers of the Daily Mail are after something deep and thought-provoking, as opposed to shocking and dramatic?

 

[braineclipse]

I have no problems agreeing to disagree.

When it comes to freedom of speech I'm of the opinion that there is no leeway, no room to give, it is fundamental to our way of life.

If you believe that because we have freedom of speech it no longer needs protecting and no longer needs to be enforced then I believe you are mistaken. If you believe that freedom of speech can exist if legal actions can be taken just because individuals find what someone said unacceptable then I don't really think you believe in freedom of speech as I know and understand it.

You seem to almost equate Samuel getting sacked over something like this with someone filing a successful lawsuit against him. Those are completely different things to me and if we have to start with that distinction it's probably better to just agree to disagree.

I don't know if you read my reply to steff on the previous page, I don't want to repeat myself, but I would really encourage you to look into the Singh vs chiropractors case. If you find the kind of regulation that allows for those kinds of lawsuits even acceptable (never mind preferable) I will be lost for words.

 

[chicken_badge]

I've just had a look at the Singh case from your link, very interesting to read as I'd never read up on this before. I would say there is a certain difference in that Singh appears to be making a serious and clear allegation, where as Samuel was, at best, making a crude and poorly thought out suggestion. Singh was affecting the professions integrity and net earnings I suppose where as Samuel was essentially affecting a persons feelings and reputation, to a point.

Do I find that sort of lawsuit acceptable? Singh v Chiropractors no, but Guardian v Chiropractors maybe. The press have to take responsibility in this for what they print. I have only skimmed the original article and it looks a reasonable example of scientific opinion so no, I don't think it appears to be a good case at first glance. But I think the question you were asking was is it ok for an individual to be sued like that and my initial response is no, but we have different situations there.

Where I come from on freedom of speech is basically this.... Our soldiers in World War 2 fought to preserve, amongst other things, our freedom to express ourselves. Politically and religiously mainly, but also in other important ways of life. They fought Hitlers wish to not just muzzle opposition, but to execute them. These soldiers didn't die to preserve Martin Samuels opportunity to publish junk journalism like this. Please do correct me if I'm mistaken but it appears to me that you are saying you can't have one thing and not the other, and I can see the logic. But I think you can differentiate the two and I have no problem with trying to do so. To me, freedom of speech isn't an issue here.

 

[Steed Train]

Contrary to most people I actually like Joey Barton. I know he did a few naughty things when he was younger but how many 'working class' (WC) blokes (like me) have not done things that they regret.

He gets mocked by the 'middle class' (MC) because he is interested in subjects that normally pass us (the working class) by. As i have got older I have developed a great interest in classical music and art to the point i can even answer questions about them on University Challenge......... I have done fairly well in life so consequently people tell me that I must be MC to have those interests etc. They don't like the thought that I can have such interests and still be WC as it threatens their own position within society.

B****cks to all that - I still play football like a yob and often talk about the great days when we took the North Bank two years running.

I get really upset when people suggest I must be MC and feel it is an insult to my hard working, decent, honest parents who instilled me with good values. And that why I like Barton because he upsets them!!

Joey Bartons actions alone label him a ****, not because he's a working class scamp universally scorned for taking up subjects "above his station". No idea why you're trying to turn this into some class war. The notion of class is pretty redundant these days, opportunities are there for anyone that lives in Britain , only restrictions are your own ones.

 

[braineclipse]

I've just had a look at the Singh case from your link, very interesting to read as I'd never read up on this before. I would say there is a certain difference in that Singh appears to be making a serious and clear allegation, where as Samuel was, at best, making a crude and poorly thought out suggestion. Singh was affecting the professions integrity and net earnings I suppose where as Samuel was essentially affecting a persons feelings and reputation, to a point.

Do I find that sort of lawsuit acceptable? Singh v Chiropractors no, but Guardian v Chiropractors maybe. The press have to take responsibility in this for what they print. I have only skimmed the original article and it looks a reasonable example of scientific opinion so no, I don't think it appears to be a good case at first glance. But I think the question you were asking was is it ok for an individual to be sued like that and my initial response is no, but we have different situations there.

Where I come from on freedom of speech is basically this.... Our soldiers in World War 2 fought to preserve, amongst other things, our freedom to express ourselves. Politically and religiously mainly, but also in other important ways of life. They fought Hitlers wish to not just muzzle opposition, but to execute them. These soldiers didn't die to preserve Martin Samuels opportunity to publish junk journalism like this. Please do correct me if I'm mistaken but it appears to me that you are saying you can't have one thing and not the other, and I can see the logic. But I think you can differentiate the two and I have no problem with trying to do so. To me, freedom of speech isn't an issue here.

I'm glad you agree about Singh. The point is one about your current libel laws that I previously called ridiculous, I hope you now see why I think so. These are the same laws that may or may not allow Barton to sue the journo in this case. Part of my point is that the laws that allow for these suits based on "hurt feelings" will almost by necessity mean lawsuits like the one against Singh. It should instead be very much a case of innocent until proven guilty and erring on the side of free speech.

Freedom of speech in the modern form is more or less a result of the enlightenment, where it rightly was seen as critical for a free society. Without the right to criticize essentially everything I struggle to see how you can have a free society. Since no one can be trusted to do what you ask, to differentiate between valid and invalid criticism there seems to me to be very little choice, but to accept that even idiots will have the freedom to share their thoughts. Do you really think that having a government that can also choose who can say what is a good idea? The argument is a slippery slope argument, but history has shown us that it's a pretty fudging slippery slope when you start allowing for that. Remember, if you allow government this power you must allow it to the political parties and leaders you most dislike and distrust should they get into power.

This to me is one of the fantastic results of the enlightenment and the revolutions that followed. The freedom of speech amendment to the US constitution got it pretty much spot on, it's just a shame that more countries in the world don't have similar versions in writing.

That's not to say that saying stuff that is hurtful, bigoted or similar won't have consequences for people making those kinds of comments.

 

[ringo]

Don't think Joey has grounds for libel. In effect he would be arguing that someone suggesting that he come out as gay (even if he is not gay) was damaging his reputation. On a related but separate issue, I imagine it would be quite difficult to demonstrate that being incorrectly labelled as gay in the media, damaged your reputation, unless your reputation was founded on being heterosexual?

 

[JellySpur]

Don't think Joey has grounds for libel. In effect he would be arguing that someone suggesting that he come out as gay (even if he is not gay) was damaging his reputation. On a related but separate issue, I imagine it would be quite difficult to demonstrate that being incorrectly labelled as gay in the media, damaged your reputation, unless your reputation was founded on being heterosexual?

Or you were a married man? Although tbf I do agree with you.

Really not sure quite what Samuel is trying to say here, I understand the joke but, It's just not funny and I don't understand how someone did not think it might be a bit uncomfortable and stop the publishing of it.

 

[Modric THFC]

The ironic thing is Barton has time and again defamed people on twitter.
The guy can give it but can't take it.

 

[thfcsteff]

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.

Sadly, I would say that the problem is that in doing so, we risk the Samuels doing more damage than good with their privilege. Such is the way of life and the necessary backfall from freedom of speech I suppose.
I hate litigious societies, but alas, we are in such times...I would suggest that to slam people who WANT to try and sue others for perceived defamation is an equal stomp on freedom and free society.
The only people who would win are the lawyers, but such is the way...again, we must tolerate them all.
So I agree in principle with what you're aying, but do not think Samuel should be 'championed as a figurehead for free speech' when he did, in fact, fire a stray bullet into the crowd. I certainly hope he doesn't hide behind 'freedom of speech' far far better if he admitted he said something stupid IMO.

Interesting sub-debate here...what about Abu Hamza? Where would you stand on that issue? Personally I think he can say what he wants but then should not be defensive when challenged in a court of law for hate speech.

With regard to burden of proof, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the basic premise of US law in a criminal case? Again, I am up to being corrected here, but it appears that every criminals case I've seen requires the defendant to prove their innocence?

Finally, I am based in the US and travel back to Britain 3-4 times a year. I'm fairly well-versed in US politics and practices, and feel there has always been a litigious element in US culture which has infiltrated British shores in the last 15 years. I agree to an extent with regards to freedom of speech, but I will say this. Watch international news coverage in the US and watch it in the UK.

Good debate mate, enjoying it...

 

[thfcsteff]

I'm glad you agree about Singh. The point is one about your current libel laws that I previously called ridiculous, I hope you now see why I think so. These are the same laws that may or may not allow Barton to sue the journo in this case. Part of my point is that the laws that allow for these suits based on "hurt feelings" will almost by necessity mean lawsuits like the one against Singh. It should instead be very much a case of innocent until proven guilty and erring on the side of free speech.

Freedom of speech in the modern form is more or less a result of the enlightenment, where it rightly was seen as critical for a free society. Without the right to criticize essentially everything I struggle to see how you can have a free society. Since no one can be trusted to do what you ask, to differentiate between valid and invalid criticism there seems to me to be very little choice, but to accept that even idiots will have the freedom to share their thoughts. Do you really think that having a government that can also choose who can say what is a good idea? The argument is a slippery slope argument, but history has shown us that it's a pretty fudging slippery slope when you start allowing for that. Remember, if you allow government this power you must allow it to the political parties and leaders you most dislike and distrust should they get into power.

This to me is one of the fantastic results of the enlightenment and the revolutions that followed. The freedom of speech amendment to the US constitution got it pretty much spot on, it's just a shame that more countries in the world don't have similar versions in writing.

That's not to say that saying stuff that is hurtful, bigoted or similar won't have consequences for people making those kinds of comments.

I "hope" that you can see the argument/point I've been putting across.
Of course I agree with everything you're saying in boldface above (I'll deal with the last one in a minute) but again, there HAS to be responsibility even on the part of idiots, otherwise they must deal with the potential consequences.

With regards to US freedom of speech, can I ask, who is it that decides something crosses the line into 'hate speech'? I agree, the US has been very pro-active in publicly defending free speech (I still wonder how much of what is said is monitored but wouldn't bother myself to live life thinking about it too much!) but someone somewhere decides the definitions, sometimes on a case-by-case basis.

FInally, as much as wikipedia isn't to be trusted 100%, I found the following interesting with regards to US freedom of speech exceptions.
One exemption is 'false statement of facts'...the way Samuel has written his piece (poorly) it could be argued that he has planted the suggestion to readers that Joey Barton is gay. This is not about whether we consider that offensive or not, it would be be about suggesting a false fact (unless it's true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)...but you catch my drift. If Samuel wanted to clarify the sarcasm he needed to word his piece a little more clearly to avoid giving Barton a shot at legal challenge. Sad but true.

 

[braineclipse]

Sorry about the slow reply steff, been busy over the weekend.

I to have enjoyed this discussion (as I do with most on this board). I think I see your point, but I also think we fundamentally disagree. When it comes to free speech I'm a bit of an absolutist (or fundamentalist if you will). I'm convinced your intentions are good, but I think the consequences of the kind of system you seem to be advocating are unacceptable.

We do risk some idiots doing more damage than good with free speech, no arguments from me. However, reducing free speech to prevent that is to me like making your tea with cold water to reduce the chance of burning your mouth. The idiots must be tolerated, accepted and in deed defended for the greater good of actually having free speech, something we can't do without.

I'm not championing this Samuel guy as a model free speech advocate. Very often these discussions are sparked by people who have no clue how lucky they are to have the rights they have. That doesn't mean that their rights shouldn't be defended. If the writer in question is Rushdie who deserved (and deserves) all the protection he could possibly get, Samuel who I personally don't care about or that holocaust denier (whatever his name was) that I can't stand really isn't the issue.

You're wrong about criminal cases, innocent until proven guilty is the default. The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I'm not disagreeing about the litigious nature you're describing in general, just making the specific point about the (to me) terrible British libel laws.

For me to take part in a sub-debate about Abu Hamza I would have to read up on that a bit more. In general though I think people should be free to say what they want, but obviously you can't encourage violence, make racist remarks or spread hate speech.

About hate speech I'm honestly also a bit on the sidelines, I have in the past looked into it without really finding reasons on either side that I found convincing. When is the line crossed? What is hate speech? Towards what groups? By who? I find it all a bit ill defined, and like you say very much on a case by case basis. That makes me skeptical.

I don't think Barton should have a leg to stand on with the "planted the suggestion" theory the way the article was written.

 

[jts1882]

Wasn't sure where to put this, so this will do:

Footballers Joey Barton and Dietmar Hamann trade nasty insults in hilarious Twitter spat

Barton and Hamann, of course, played together in the Emirates Marketing Project midfield for a season. They parted ways in the summer of 2007, since which time one has become a washed-up, semi-retired has-been whose considerable footballing talent is now a fading memory and who lives his life vicariously through Twitter in an attempt to recapture the renown he once enjoyed, and the other has remained Dietmar Hamann.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/soc...nsults-in-hilarious-twitter-spat-3354154.html