Joey Barton appeals conviction for offensive social media messages
Joey Barton has formally launched an appeal against his conviction for sending grossly offensive messages on social media, positioning the legal challenge as a battle for free expression, reports BritPanorama.
The former Premier League midfielder, found guilty of targeting broadcaster Jeremy Vine and football pundits Eni Aluko and Lucy Ward, announced the move on X this morning.
“My appeal is now formally underway,” Barton wrote. “I reject this conviction, and the questions it raises about free expression reach far beyond me.” The 43-year-old pledged to honour the legal process while maintaining his innocence.
Barton’s conviction last month stemmed from a series of posts made between January and March 2024. A jury at Liverpool Crown Court determined he had crossed the boundary separating legitimate commentary from criminal conduct. His messages included likening Ward and Aluko to notorious serial killers Fred and Rose West and suggesting that Aluko belonged to the “Joseph Stalin/Pol Pot category”, claiming she had “murdered hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of football fans’ ears”.
When Vine defended the two pundits, Barton labelled him a slang term for paedophile and insinuated he would contact police if he spotted the broadcaster cycling near a primary school.
Barton was convicted on six charges while being acquitted of another six. Judge Andrew Menary KC handed Barton a six-month custodial sentence, which is suspended for 18 months. He also ordered 200 hours of community service and payment of prosecution costs totalling £23,419. Two-year restraining orders were imposed to prevent any contact with his victims, including prohibitions on references to them on social media or broadcast platforms.
Judge Menary addressed the limits of acceptable discourse in his sentencing remarks, stating, “Robust debate, satire, mockery and even crude language may fall within permissible free speech. But when posts deliberately target individuals with vilifying comparisons to serial killers or false insinuations of paedophilia, designed to humiliate and distress, they forfeit their protection.” He characterised Barton’s conduct as “a sustained campaign of online abuse that was not mere commentary but targeted, extreme and deliberately harmful”.
Following his sentencing, Barton expressed regret while maintaining that his actions were misunderstood. “If I could turn back the clock I would,” he told the BBC. “I never meant to hurt anyone. It was a joke that got out of hand. Nobody wants to go to jail.”
During his trial, Barton claimed he was subject to a “political prosecution” and denied seeking attention through his posts. Victim impact statements painted a starkly different picture of the consequences. Vine described Barton as “a small man who feeds off the pain of others”, calling the experience “profoundly traumatising”. Aluko labelled the comments “the most offensive criticism she has experienced in her life”, stating it left her afraid to leave home and caused financial losses. Ward characterised the posts as “hateful”, adding, “I am now constantly afraid, not just of the defendant, but the people he has incited against me.”
As Barton embarks on this appeal, the enduring question remains: how far can free speech extend in the realms of social media without crossing critical boundaries? The intersection of online platforms and public discourse continues to prompt significant discussion across the sporting world.
