I hope he wins his lawsuit, regardless of his sexuality.
The Daily Mail is a disgrace
The Daily Heil is a scummy rag – that is beyond doubt.
But Barton should not sue.
Saying or implying that someone is gay is neither slander not libel.
And it shouldn’t be regarded as such.
No, but it’s spectacularly inaccurate given that Barton is not gay yet has taken a very public stance against homophobia. Why should he be keen on being called gay when he’s not? It would also imply he’s a liar and in a sham marriage.
Being called gay is not an insult though.
The Heil’s intention was certainly insulting but that speaks to the kind of disgusting rag that it is.
By all means go after the Heil for damaging his marriage by their article.
But I simply disagree with the idea that being labelled gay is libelous.
Whilst being called ‘gay’ is not and should nt be an insult, in this case the man is in a heterosexual marriage. The article implies that that marriage is a sham and that is where in my view the defamation lies.
Well if he does sue then his focus should be on the damage to his marriage caused by the article, not on the fact that he was labelled gay.
I see where you’re coming from, but I don’t agree with you on this one.
I totally agree David, being gay should not be considered as insulting or libellous in the 21st century.
Actually, if it’s a lie it IS slander/libel, period. It’s either true or it’s not.
Actually no. Libel is written and slander is spoken for a start so this would be libel. Libel is defamation not lying. It is not against the law to lie. If he does sue it is sending the wrong message.
Would someone gay sue a newspaper for calling them straight? Can’t see it.
He could make it clear that he was not offended by the “gay” bit but by the implication that he may be in a sham marriage or that he was unfaithful to his wife. He could kill two birds with one stone?
I think he SHOULD sue. The Daily Mail has maliciously poked fun at him and basically said, “If you are so empathic as to adopt the accent of the country you’re playing for, then why don’t you go a bit further and say that you’re gay!”
It’s taunting! Nothing short of baiting!
And that taunting and baiting rests on a bed of homophobia!
He should sue! And he should sue them for taunting and baiting in manner that is offensive to all homosexual people. He should not sue them for suggesting he is gay.
The point is that Barton – for all his faults – is the one Premiership footballer who was prepared to openly support gay rights and condemn homophobia, In past years Graeme LeSaux did the same and got the same sort of treatment – actually from other players. No player would dare do that to Joey – he’d nut them.
I think he’s right. Why the hell should they be able to behave like this? He clearly doesn’t think being gay is an insult – but he isn’t, so its wrong.
If he sues and he wins then he is merely confirming that in legal terms being gay (or being regarded as gay) is damaging and defamatory.
Being gay (or being regarded as gay) should not legally be regarded as damaging to someone’s reputation.
That sends an extremely unpleasant message.
He would be better off complaining to the PCC (useless as it is) to state that the Mail’s article is damaging to his marriage (not to his professional reputation)
Wrong. He’s saying that people should tell the truth under any circumstances. It has nothing to do with him feeling gay is wrong, and everything to do with protecting the integrity of his marriage and the facts. Would you like it if someone told lies about you being sexually attracted to someone you weren’t if it interfered with your relationship, no matter who it was about?
That’s 2 separate issues though.
If someone said I was sexually attracted to someone that I wasn’t then I’d be upset that it could damage my relationship.
IBut it would be irrelevant in my mind whether the fake sexual attraction was to a man or a woman.
Why doesn’t he just go down there and knock seven shades of s**t out of the editor. Thats how he usually resolves issues.
Do we really care, no we dont. This is the media reporting on the media. How about some real news. Like how many children died today because of starvation and neglect.
You care enough to comment on it.
WOW! Full marks for observation.
Thanks! And full marks to you for fatuity.
I wouldn’t like it if anyone suggested I was straight? My son wouldn’t like it either I guess. None of us like lies said about us and if its in a national ‘newpaper’ then I feel we all might sue.
If you were to sue someone for libel for suggesting you are straight then you would lose your case.
Being considered straight is not considered libelous.
If we want to be equal then surely the suggestion that someone is gay should also not be regarded as being libelous.
dAVID. Most sense I have heard here.
How do you hear stuff on these boards? I only get the text visually… Lol
joel, I always read out aloud, don’t you?
What about suggesting someone is in a sham marriage?
This is just an attempt by the Daily Fail to ridicule and call him gay for being supportive to gays
being called gay is damaging if you are married with or without children or in a heterosexual relationship. It could damage the relationship. I am in a CP and would not want a newspaper claiming I was straight.
Anyone got the link to the original DM article?
What the Daily Mail was really saying is that there are no gay footballers. Joey Barton is right to say it was a homophobic article.
Joey has a gay brother. he supports gay rights. He should sue the hell out of the Daily Mail for the lie.
Here’s the thing. It’s not an insult to Joey except implying he’s lying to his wife/sham marriage. That’s bad enough.
But what’s really going on here is the Daily Hate, getting on their homophobic bandwagon and taking it out for a ride. The journo is the homophobe here.
It it could have been a gay uncle.
Liberace sued the Daily Mirror in the 1960′s for saying that he was gay.
He was gay.
But he won his libel case.
Jason Donovan successfully sued The Face magazine in the early 1990′s for falsely stating he was gay. He won his case.
Being labelled gay should be regarded legally as being labelled straight.
The allegation that he is cheating on his wife is the libelous issue – not the fact that they called him gay.
That’s no longer the case tho. Several courts in the US and elsewhere have refused to acceept that being labelled as gay is an insult – which is an evolution of justice systems acknowledging that being gay is no longer seen as a mental disorder by the professional bodies, nor is it something which most people find objectionable.
But if they implied a married man is living a lie, implying the marriage is a sham, without providing quality proof, then he has grounds. You can’t go around publishing deliberately damaging insinuations about people.
They wrote “So here’s a thought. Joey Barton continues his quest for intellectual and social respectability. Why not come out as gay?” which kinda implies just that. Now, if he hadn’t been married to a women, I’m not sure how much case there would be – they make accusations all the time, but in this case they’re implying that his marriage is a sham.
Did they actually accuse him of cheating on his wife?
Jason Donovan won because they accused him of cheating on his wife and his marriage being a sham, not because of the accusation that he was gay.
This article has no context and doesn’t deserve any comment from us without us reading the article that appeared in the Daily Mail.
Why hasn’t PinkNews provided a link to that article?
I’ve read it, and as expected it is a typically sneery, insulting Daily Heil style article.
I’m not a lawyer but it strikes me as a mean-spirited article rather than being libelous.
It’s a typical (expected even) swipe at people who are gay, implying that if he came out as gay;
“Instant credibility, instant respect, untouchable by the Football Association or future employers. His past misdeeds mentally reprocessed and explained.”
It imples not equality and fair treatment, but “special” favoured status, instantly implying unfairness towards anyone who isn’t gay.
As DM articles go – this one is pretty tame as far as homophobia, but he likely has a case for implying his marriage could be a sham. The problem is they have been very careful about the wording. You can be sure there are a whole group of lawyers who work for that group, checking editorial content, and some articles never even make it to the web because of that. If this one is published and still up there, they must think their wording is just vague enough.
So, I’ve now read the Daily Mail article . . . and I find the following line offensive.
“So here’s a thought. Joey Barton continues his quest for intellectual and social respectability. Why not come out as gay? ”
That Daily Mail oaf Martin Samuel is patently having a very nasty homophobic dig at Joey Barton simply because he spoke with a French accent during the following interview:
The reason that Mr. Barton spoke with a French accent is that he has sought to blend in, and get on with, his French colleagues. That’s admirable. It’s clear that Joey is a sensitive person.
But, no, oaf Samuels probably wants Joey to talk like a meat-headed Ing-ga-lish oaf, just like himself.
Makes my blood boil.
The Daily Mail is making a mockery, a joke out of being Gay.
Joey Barton should sue and I hope he wins!
To restrict a Google search to just a particular stie just put “site:” and the sitename, i.e.
site:dailymail.co.uk Joey Barton gay hero
I think in the present Leveson environment- this article proves that the press hasn’t changed one bit! They are still overstepping the mark as far as individuals are concerned. Now- if Joey could make a complaint to an official statutory body with legal powers……….the Mail wouldn’t be too keen to print this kind of personal and spurious artice any time soon again.
I agree. The Mail and Telegraph have no respect for common decency. Cameron was dead wrong by not supporting regulation. In cases like this, it is warranted. Both need to take some responsibility or face a stiff fine, prosecution or both. I find it ironic that some consider it isn’t wrong to write something about someone which isn’t true, yet if you give false testimony in court, you would be charged with perjury. A serious offence and subject to jail time.
Too many papers think the US law applies where you can write all the bollocks you want and the person your writing about has to prove it is false, and too many politicians are relying on the fact that there is a partial remedy in tort as defamation – however the law increasingly finds that things although published maliciously are not defamatory because ‘right thinking people’ wouldn’t think any less of the person – however this ignores the case that the world is full of bigoted and nasty people who would think less and still consider themself right thinking.
While I’m really not a fan of some of the thuggish behaviour he’s had many convictions for……..I cannot fault him on this singular issue. He’s always been a fount of common sense and a genuinely nice guy when it comes to LGBT sportspeople.
I think he’s completely entitled to take on the Mail, as it may make them reconsider some of these disgusting ‘outing’ stories in the future. It’s not right if you’re a married heterosexual with kids, and it’s not right if you’re private about your sexuality. Nobodies business.
Considering the amount of hateful garbage from this “paper” that rivals Der Stürmer, if somebody wants to sue the Mail they have my support.
Stupid article making Joey Barton appear homophobic denying it when clearly he is not.
They would have just wanted a “gay” item in the paper so that it would attract the usual red necks who would hack the comment section and leave offensive remarks and who would give multiple green arrows to other bigots.The usual orchestrated outrage of course.
He wasn’t called gay, surely. It was suggested that he could be a gay hero. Doesn’t that mean a person gay people admire, like Madonna or Kylie Minogue or the like?
That said, it’s the mail, so maybe people commenting hee are right, after all!
It was not implied that he is a gay hero already. Rather that he should out himself, regardless of whether he is or is not gay, to gain some kind of political street cred, because we all know being gay is so cool and LGBT people get all the perks in society.
“So here’s a thought. Joey Barton continues his quest for intellectual and social respectability. Why not come out as gay?”
I fully expect that this journalist often complains to his nearest and dearest, that life as a white heterosexual male is really hard because he can’t have his own parade or flag.
The Daily Mail. A one-paper argument against freedom of expression, sadly. Although the competition is stiff.
It’s not even an article, more like a really long, ill thought out, drunken facebook status update, that most people would be ashamed of the next day.
Joey Barton should just ignore it. I think it would be hard to prove that something so asinine and trite could be libellous because it’s so obviously a load of senseless sh¡t.
Friends! I just noticed that the Chris Morris thread is appearing in the “Most Popular” list of PN’s “Top Stories” (because it currently has 192 comments), so I just visited it . . . and I’m so glad I did.
There’s a new link there to:
Read it! And follow its links! (Though not all are still workingl.)
It proves that the high and mighty Peter Mandelson is connected with Chris Morris and thereby with a gay porn website (run by Chris Morris!).
So now we not only have proof that Chris Morris’s “I’m not gay” was fraudulent, but we also have proof that one of the most important people in the land is or has been involved with him!
What a little poseur! The sheer nerve of him! And to think he’s diddling big money out of people for talking rubbish.
What you posted here, “It proves that the high and mighty Peter Mandelson is connected with Chris Morris and thereby with a gay porn website (run by Chris Morris!).” is (according to the actual article at the link) a lie. A flaming lie. A pathetic lie.
An equivalent smear would be if someone posted that Eddy’s mum is only six degrees of separation from every prostitute in the world, which therefore proves.. No. I can’t get myself to finish the filth in writing. I’m unable to sink as low as you. I will say, though, that you did your parents proud with your comment. Not.
Somebody should ask the Daily Mail why Martin Samuel singled Joe Barton out if it weren’t for the fact that he supports gay people. What was Samuel’s point? What has Barton’s support of gay people have to do with playing football? It’s nothing more than gay-baiting. The writer of the article knew exactly what he was doing, deliberately so to provoke a response.
I detect homophobia coming from Samuel. A very cheap shot indeed. Joe should at least sue for defamation since the article seems to imply his marriage might be a sham simply because he happens to be supportive of gay people and gay players. Joe Barton is bang on. It is shoddy commentary but then it’s the Daily Mail, nothing but pure yellow journalism, and that’s being kind. I wouldn’t call what it writes to be journalism either. Almost always factually inaccurate and a denizen of sensationalism. After all, it is a rag.
Quite. It was typical Daily Mail logic and propaganda touting tripe – Joey’s a thug but if he comes out as gay then he’ll have all the unwarranted ‘protection’ that all the Gays get. And all the left wing Guardianista will be falling over themselves to congratulate him sweep all his bad points under the carpet – cos well, that’s what happens with all the Gay’s isn’t it?
Aren’t you, the nice middle class, hard working, white, straight, law abiding, christian Daily Mail readers hard done by. Isn’t it all outrageous! Buy tomorrow’s edition to be even more outraged and something that doesn’t even exist!
I consider myself reasonably left wing (if you were to place me on the political spectrum) and I’m not making any excuses for Joey Barton. I just think that the Mail is mendacious, hate-mongering, vile filth and this is just another way for this disgusting excuse for a paper to publish more thinly-veiled hate directed at gay people. Cheap, tacky journalism. It’s that simple.
You won’t win a lawsuite for defamation if the article simply says he is gay. Thats long established case law however if theres another ‘sting’ to it which is untrue he might have a case for libel HOWEVER it might be easier to build up a collection of articles about him and sue for harrasment.
There is nothing wrong with being ‘Straight ‘ and being a ‘Gay hero’. We only have to look at other sports esp Rugby to see that.
However this is the Daily Mail and what they do is not report on facts but assumptions and hatred.
In light of the Leveson Report the Daily Mail continues to fail in any of it’s brand of journalism. It too many times reports myths that damage, hurt and diliberately offend to cause maximum hatred of others.
Nothing in such a paper can be, nor should be believed and I hope in time people who read such drivel will start to learn and abandon.
I hope Joey Barton can and does sue. It’s time this kind of negative press was seriously dealt with.