June 04, 2020, 09:31:34 PM

Author Topic: Banning The Sun from Goodison  (Read 11333 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

April 15, 2017, 11:20:07 PM
Read 11333 times


His heritage was an after thought, because it's an indirect attack on the City, Barkley wasn't the cut and thrust of the story. He denigrates Barkley as thick and worthless, but only to build blame to shift. He probably spent a few minutes looking at the manna of the Barkley story and then spent every waking second between then and finishing article on thinking of all the different ways to call people cunts.

In terms of the racism issue, there is the fairly obvious point that without the heritage, very few considered it racist, but once Barkley's heritage was raised it became a big issue. But white people in UK who campaign on racism matters tend not to find comparisons to primates offensive for some reason, they are more concerned about having freedom to say it. But also it's presumed you can't be racist among your own racial group, there is somewhat of an impunity for self denigration. But I do think you can make the case that while Barkley may be 1/8 Nigerian, McKenzie will have some too at some point, maybe he's got Ghanaian heritage and that's why he's having a pop.  :whistle:

With regard to Barkley's heritage, it was available in public domain, but probably a long way down the pecking order in terms of stories or info. We naturally have a higher level of knowledge of Everton players and I'm sure there were plenty of us who didn't know or had forgotten about it, until this re raised it.

It's that time of the year when McKenzie gets the most abuse, and I think people are always somewhat reflective of what they receive. I wouldn't be surprised if he was drunk, manically laughing and spitting through gritted teeth as he was writing it. There is an art or skill to contained offence, much like controlled aggression in football. If you can offend only a selected group in society, a minority will cheer you on, while majority reserve judgement, give benefit of doubt or lack interest.

When you are trying to deliberately offend a group, you try so hard to offend you sometimes forget where the boundaries lay and the context changes. People like McKenzie who have been editors, will rarely admit their mistakes in public and assume they know best on all matters, the narrative just adapts. But he quickly realised he'd dropped a bollock and is desperately scrambling for some sort of defence and to try and isolate himself from liability.
Correct me if I am wrong, but ignorance is not a defence in the eyes of the law and certainly not in any potential civil suit if he were to seek damages for defamation.

April 15, 2017, 11:52:01 PM
Reply #1


Under law we all have certain obligations where ignorance is not an excuse, but generally it's exhibit A, B and C in many legal matters. As far as I'm aware, I thought it's considered as mitigating circumstances or adds context, but as an excuse on its own it carries no water or merit. While ignorance can be no excuse for certain things, in the details it becomes an incredibly useful tool to absolve of culpability.

I think here, you're looking into what is reasonable ignorance, it's surely a wise idea to establish and punish more significantly if comments are malicious, rather than naive. But defence team then has case to demonstrate the levels of ignorance of defendant, especially on the more prominent matters. Generally anything that harms your defence is generally a good thing to forget about prejudgement.

Law takes people's situation and position into account when making judgements, a man under duress may act out of character.  But also the accused sometimes literally had no knowledge what they were doing was illegal and I'm sure there are many examples of things that are illegal, but you may not consider immoral.

Do a peaceful protest at a nuclear facility, do a comedy routine about terrorism in a sensitive area and you may be punished in a way that seems disproportionately harsh. But morality and legality don't always meet, defame a small business owner and you'll probably be refused service, defame a powerful, rich business owner and you'll find your life on hold for years while they fight you in court case after court case.

My general rule is that it's not worth picking battles with people prepared to go to war, and you need to be wise before choosing to do so. McKenzie is exactly the sort of person who fights all his court cases in the public domain, as that's where most of the judgements are at least framed. But he tiptoes in to the most offensive territory, because he is reassured about the law and what is permissible in court.

Well the court of popular opinion has already found him guilty but I think what is key is what you describe as being "reasonable ignorance". I think most people would consider it normal practice for a journalist to do some background research on a anyone you are about to frame an article around. Whether a court would is another question.