Strange it is that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free speech but object to their being ‘pushed to an extreme’ not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case,” wrote the eminent philosopher John Stuart Mill.
What the old boy meant was that, if you truly believe in freedom of expression, you must accept that opinions will occasionally be voiced which you, and society at large, may find deeply objectionable. Otherwise, your belief is hollow.
Mill, himself a passionate free speech advocate, would, I suspect, be horrified at the oppressive culture that has taken hold in Britain, all underpinned by a web of restrictive laws, and which is slowly but surely eroding our proud tradition of upholding the right to express ourselves freely and openly.
He would probably be appalled, too, at the double standards of those who claim to believe in free speech but are very quick to demand the punishment of political opponents who happen to have said or written something they find offensive. Such people are rank hypocrites.
Which brings me to Joey Barton. The former footballer, who has cultivated something of a reputation for being a controversial voice on social media, received a six-month suspended prison sentence earlier this week.
His crime? He went on to ‘X’ and posted some nasty things about three media personalities – broadcaster Jeremy Vine and female football pundits Eni Aluko and Lucy Ward.
Let me stress that some of the posts – in particular those that falsely suggested Vine had a sexual interest in children – were genuinely unpleasant. But others, while distasteful, were not exactly shocking, let alone beyond the parameters of what should be considered lawful.
For example, Barton branded Aluko and Ward “the Fred and Rose West of football commentary” and superimposed their faces onto an image of the serial killers. He also asserted that Aluko, a black woman, was “only there to tick boxes”. All these actions found their way onto the charge sheet.
The aggrieved parties were perfectly entitled to seek redress for defamation in the civil courts (indeed, Vine and Aluko did so, with the former being awarded substantial compensation). But in a sane world, the case would never have been brought before a criminal court.
Joey Barton's conviction threatens our most fundamental freedom. This is modern terror - Paul Embery
|Getty Images
Insulting high-profile celebrities, even in grossly offensive terms, should not be deemed a crime. Otherwise, where do we draw the line? What about the likes of Ricky Gervais and Jimmy Carr, who routinely make the most caustic and offensive remarks about others, including fellow celebrities?
Do they get a free ride because they are “official” comedians whose shows attract thousands? Does that make them less socially toxic than Barton and therefore not subject to the same rules?
Barton’s prosecution provides further evidence that Britain truly has a free speech problem. His case stands alongside countless others as a mark of how State authorities are increasingly confident about wading in and throwing their weight around whenever someone claims to have been “offended” in some way. And if the complainant happens to have a protected characteristic, well, then the wagons really start to roll.
It's high time Britain followed the lead of the United States, where the First Amendment guarantees that, other than where it is intended or likely to result in “imminent lawless action”, even the most inflammatory speech is protected against government interference.
The Americans have many faults, but they really could teach the rest of the world a thing or two about the importance of defending free expression.
By contrast, it is quite possible on this side of the pond for a person to land in the dock simply for having used words that were deemed “insulting” or “abusive”. And even where the “offence” does not end in a court appearance, the investigation and negative publicity – and the stigma that results – are often punishment enough.
Moreover, it isn’t only the State that is enforcing this modern terror. Workplaces, too, are becoming ideological battlegrounds, with swaggering HR managers imposing woke speech codes and persecuting anyone who fails to comply. More and more, we see cases where employees have been disciplined for expressing viewpoints that, beyond the workplace doors, are entirely mainstream.
There needs to be a major pushback against this insidious attack on our ancient and hard-won liberties. A civilised and free society should always be slow to haul people into court or destroy their livelihoods for something they have said or written.
The sentence handed down to Barton also merits scrutiny, for it smacks of two-tier justice.
There are plenty of cases where defendants convicted of violent crimes were treated with greater leniency than was shown to him. How can it be right that a person who throws insults at a celebrity on social media receives a harsher sanction than a thug who throws punches at an innocent person on the street?
Needless to say, many of Barton’s opponents are cock-a-hoop at his punishment, arguing that he deserved everything he got. They should be careful what they wish for. They may find one day that their own opinions have become unfashionable and the authorities will have them in their sights.
Following his conviction, Barton announced that he would be appealing the verdict. As he said himself, the entire case raises questions about free expression that reach far beyond him.
All of us, even those who have no time for Barton personally, should hope his appeal succeeds.
Otherwise, we will have no grounds for complaint when a fundamental freedom – one that we complacently assume we will always enjoy – is taken from us for good.
More From GB News