The courtroom was silent as the verdict came down: Joey Barton had crossed a line. Not a line of sporting competition, but a legal boundary separating protected speech from criminal behavior, according to the Liverpool Crown Court.
The case centered around a series of online posts, escalating in vitriol. One particularly jarring comparison saw Barton likening Sian Aluko to figures like Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot, claiming her commentary had “murdered” the listening pleasure of countless football fans.
Barton’s defense rested on the claim of “dark and stupid humour,” arguing his words were never meant to be taken literally. He characterized his targeting of broadcaster Jeremy Vine as mere “banter,” dismissing the accusations of harmful intent.
Prosecutors painted a starkly different picture, arguing Barton’s actions went “some considerable margin” beyond acceptable discourse. They asserted he wasn’t a champion of free speech, but rather an aggressor wielding online platforms to inflict harm.
The defense countered that a guilty verdict would render free speech “completely worthless,” suggesting Barton’s posts, while “idiotic or offensive,” didn’t reach the threshold of “grossly offensive.” They framed his actions as a misguided attempt at a “wind-up.”
The prosecution, however, delivered a scathing rebuke, portraying Barton not as a persecuted voice, but as a “bully” who derived pleasure from online harassment. They described a deliberate pattern of posting hurtful “slurs” from the safety of his phone.
Ultimately, the jury sided with the prosecution. Barton was found guilty on six counts of sending grossly offensive electronic communications, each designed to cause distress and anxiety to the recipients.
The sentencing hearing is yet to be scheduled, leaving Barton to face the consequences of his online actions. The case raises profound questions about the limits of free expression in the digital age and the responsibility that comes with a public platform.
