Some people concluded that my stance on defending the right of fans to sing 'offensive' songs, stemmed from my hatred of Jews and blacks; this was never the case.
However I am worried about setting the precedent of clubs and other organisations punishing fans for speech that is not a call to violence.
Totteham Hotspur have recently announced their intention to discover the identity of a fan, and punish them for accusing Chelsea fullback Alonso of murder.
For those that do not know, Alonso was involved in a car crash while driving under the influence, that resulted in the death of a young woman.
He has never served time for this crime.
One of the reasons that the court gave for overturning a custodial sentence, was the amount of voluntary compensation Alonso paid her family members.
Do I agree this was murder? No.
But it was certainly a travesty of justice and I understand the sentiment of the accusation.
Regardless of the possible motives of the Spurs fan in question, I do not feel sympathy for Alonso, in being forcedly reminded of this event; I hope he relives and regrets these actions everyday of his life.
It is my understanding that this flag accusing Alonso of murder was not displayed inside the ground, where some would argue clubs have the authority to control behaviour as they see fit.
Rather the Tottenham hierarchy think it is in their purview to police speech in a public space.
When I suggested that banning offensive jokes, chants and songs was a slippery slope, it was no argument from fallacy.
We have already slipped to the point that a private enterprise wants to persecute an individual, for making an arguably truthful, if somewhat unnuanced, statement.
Why?
I can only assume its because said statement hurt the feelings of a multi-millionaire, and slightly sullied the reputation of his employer... and Spurs... Spurs might want Chelsea to return the favour one day x
Free Speech Follow Up
posted on 4/10/17
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/10/17
Just shoot. .exactly
One man's abuse is another man's well remonstrated opinion, the club in this case, and also Winston, you and I think it's abuse.
,
So that wraps it up for me
posted on 4/10/17
Bear in mind this didn't happen in the stadium though, which is why I personally don't think the club should be pursuing this or seeking to punish the individual.
posted on 5/10/17
oddiY.. (U1585)
It's not consistent.
The club are not stopping this person expressing his opinion. They are not censoring him.
They are simply saying that a form of behaviour is unacceptable.
I can't believe you don't understand the difference.
posted on 5/10/17
At the end of the day any club has the right to decide who enters their premises. Unless it is on discrimation due to colour, religion or racism generally then they can legally stop any person entering their premises.
I would suggest that most, if not all clubs have something in their T&C’s that covers behaviour once you buy a ticket which covers them in cases like this.
By the way I think it is abhorrent to allow someone to buy their way out of a prison sentence in this manner.
As for the family accepting it, that is for them and their consciences going forward.
posted on 5/10/17
That's very true Genius, the question is whether they should have that right, particularly if the behaviour in question is outside of the ground.
I don't think they should, only for behaviour that happens inside the ground, and I think if the fan in question were to be punished by a stadium ban and then contest it and take it to court, I think they might win.
posted on 5/10/17
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 5/10/17
I'm talking about the club themselves. In that instance, that was a police matter wasn't it, as it was classed as racial violence?
posted on 5/10/17
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 5/10/17
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 hours, 3 minutes ago
oddiY.. (U1585)
It's not consistent.
The club are not stopping this person expressing his opinion. They are not censoring him.
They are simply saying that a form of behaviour is unacceptable.
I can't believe you don't understand the difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last comment on this for me ...his behaviour was a banner stating Alonso was a Murderer (from what I undesrtand) that is what the club want to exclude him for. I don't understand how that isn't considered his opinion or his right to express himself.
That is what the OP is stating as the crux of the debate. He didn't attack Alonso neither was he venomous in his approach.
What you are arguing is a hypothetical scenario that only happened in your head.
Understand that his behaviour in this case was not aggressive, or in any way inconsistent with what we see outside parliament or court rooms every day, it was a guy with a banner.
The OP is arguing this is opposed to the fans rights of free speech. The nub of this debate is whether the clubs right to exclude someone based on them expressing an opinion is censorship in someway
Have you read the OP? if so what is your view on that rather than rather than the one in your head?