Joey Barton convicted of sending grossly offensive social media posts
Eni Aluko has revealed she did not sleep, eat or leave her house following a series of social media posts made by former professional footballer Joey Barton, who was convicted on Friday of sending grossly offensive communications, reports BritPanorama.
A jury at Liverpool Crown Court found Barton guilty concerning six posts made on the platform X, previously known as Twitter. The jury concluded that these posts crossed the legal threshold from lawful free expression into criminal communications.
Barton, 43, was acquitted on six other counts. The messages in question referenced Aluko, broadcaster Jeremy Vine, and football pundit Lucy Ward. Some content involved superimposing Aluko and Ward’s faces onto an image of serial killers. The jury deemed this specific post grossly offensive.
Aluko spoke about the significant impact the posts had on her, stating, “I didn’t eat, I didn’t get out of bed that week. I didn’t leave my house. I felt terrified about just being in my local area.” She emphasized the substantial influence of Barton’s 2.5 million followers on the amplification of the posts, which left her feeling under siege.
During the trial, Barton maintained that he believed he was making a form of provocative joke. He characterized the posts as attempts at dark humour, denying any intent to cause distress. His defence argued he was exercising free speech, yet the prosecution highlighted that the comments crossed the line into personal attacks, leading to the jury’s verdict.
Aluko further expressed her concerns about the potential real-world consequences of social media hostility, remarking that online content can influence behaviour and may lead some individuals to see such hostility as tacit encouragement for violence. “I think the amplification of it is the problem because it starts to feed other ideas.” She added that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the dissemination of such views can have troubling implications.
The court case has revived discussions about the limits of acceptable online expression and the responsibilities that come with public platforms. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, so too does the discourse regarding accountability and the ramifications of online actions.
In an era where social media wields immense power, this case serves as a stark reminder of how one individual’s words can ripple through communities, affecting lives far beyond the virtual realm. It raises pertinent questions about the nature of expression and the weights of consequence in today’s interconnected world.
