Home
Last week a Bolton Wanderers fan was refused access to the Macron Stadium for the match against Northampton Town because of comments made towards a member of club staff on social media.
As things stand, an investigation is ongoing and it has not yet been decided whether the supporter will be allowed to attend future games.
But in making this stand against one person’s online behaviour, have the Whites opened Pandora’s Box?
Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and the like are the modern-day equivalents of the Wild West. Filled with pseudonyms and folk who shoot from the hip, it is nearly impossible to police.
Like everyone these days, Wanderers maintain a very visible presence online. When things are going well, this can do the world of good.
Take, for example, the perfect shutdown to a homophobic tweet from a Manchester United ‘fan’ earlier this month. A few choice words in support of LGBT equality charity Stonewall went viral, and suddenly people were falling over themselves to praise the club for their quick wit.
In a run of bad results, the online environment can be very different.
Though some inexplicably still fail to grasp the concept, the majority of football fans should be aware the extremes of racism, sexism and homophobia will not be tolerated, online or on the terraces.
The grey area – certainly in this case – falls under in interpretation of that most loathsome of laddish phrases: “banter”.
One might argue Wanderers’ off-hand comment to the fan was not – in the truest sense of the word – ‘professional’ but its sentiment was well-meaning.
But we live in a world where organisations like Virgin Rail can have a Twitter spat with the leader of the Labour party, so we had better move with the times.
Supporters tend to use the “banter defence” to explain away comments which had they been voiced in the street, would have been deemed offensive or slanderous. And when they appear in written format, by the letter of the law, some can be deemed defamatory.
Journalists spent their formative years with nose buried in a McNae’s textbook learning the libel laws for good reason. Some – including myself – still need the odd refresher from an experienced head in the office, or a twitchy company solicitor.
When I commit words to paper, each one theoretically has to stand up in court. Criticism has to be fair and responsible. This is not as a result of Wanderers’ influence, more that I don’t want to end up paying damages to a player I have errantly described as “lazy” rather than choosing more diplomatic wording.
To date, such repercussions for fans’ online comments are rare.
In August, Charlton Athletic’s already-controversial ownership instructed one fan he must sign an ‘Agreed Behavioural Contract’ before being able to purchase a season ticket. This, it seems, had stemmed from something the fan had said online months earlier.
Arsenal also took a stand against social media abuse last summer, backed by Kick It Out, issuing Emirates bans to a small number of fans for abuse which had been aimed at Arsene Wenger.
Even Manchester United have flexed their cyber muscles, issuing a three-year ban to a supporter whose tweets about disabled supporters had been considered “inappropriate and offensive” by the club.
Several footballers have also landed themselves in hot water since Twitter took off, and required the user to engage their brain before typing.
The door to make people accountable for their online behaviour has been pushed ajar. That anti-poverty campaigner Jack Monroe won £24,000 of damages from controversial columnist Katie Hopkins in a high-profile libel case earlier this year, may have widened the gap further. But what next?
Wanderers made a statement by preventing the accused supporter watching a game.
Some will inevitably argue this is an attempt to sanitise. Until the details of the case are divulged, it is difficult to judge whether the club has been heavy-handed on this occasion.
Opinions will never – and should never – be silenced, whether online or otherwise. But as everyone races to post theirs into cyberspace this evening should they be thinking twice about the content?
Source
As things stand, an investigation is ongoing and it has not yet been decided whether the supporter will be allowed to attend future games.
But in making this stand against one person’s online behaviour, have the Whites opened Pandora’s Box?
Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and the like are the modern-day equivalents of the Wild West. Filled with pseudonyms and folk who shoot from the hip, it is nearly impossible to police.
Like everyone these days, Wanderers maintain a very visible presence online. When things are going well, this can do the world of good.
Take, for example, the perfect shutdown to a homophobic tweet from a Manchester United ‘fan’ earlier this month. A few choice words in support of LGBT equality charity Stonewall went viral, and suddenly people were falling over themselves to praise the club for their quick wit.
In a run of bad results, the online environment can be very different.
Though some inexplicably still fail to grasp the concept, the majority of football fans should be aware the extremes of racism, sexism and homophobia will not be tolerated, online or on the terraces.
The grey area – certainly in this case – falls under in interpretation of that most loathsome of laddish phrases: “banter”.
One might argue Wanderers’ off-hand comment to the fan was not – in the truest sense of the word – ‘professional’ but its sentiment was well-meaning.
But we live in a world where organisations like Virgin Rail can have a Twitter spat with the leader of the Labour party, so we had better move with the times.
Supporters tend to use the “banter defence” to explain away comments which had they been voiced in the street, would have been deemed offensive or slanderous. And when they appear in written format, by the letter of the law, some can be deemed defamatory.
Journalists spent their formative years with nose buried in a McNae’s textbook learning the libel laws for good reason. Some – including myself – still need the odd refresher from an experienced head in the office, or a twitchy company solicitor.
When I commit words to paper, each one theoretically has to stand up in court. Criticism has to be fair and responsible. This is not as a result of Wanderers’ influence, more that I don’t want to end up paying damages to a player I have errantly described as “lazy” rather than choosing more diplomatic wording.
To date, such repercussions for fans’ online comments are rare.
In August, Charlton Athletic’s already-controversial ownership instructed one fan he must sign an ‘Agreed Behavioural Contract’ before being able to purchase a season ticket. This, it seems, had stemmed from something the fan had said online months earlier.
Arsenal also took a stand against social media abuse last summer, backed by Kick It Out, issuing Emirates bans to a small number of fans for abuse which had been aimed at Arsene Wenger.
Even Manchester United have flexed their cyber muscles, issuing a three-year ban to a supporter whose tweets about disabled supporters had been considered “inappropriate and offensive” by the club.
Several footballers have also landed themselves in hot water since Twitter took off, and required the user to engage their brain before typing.
The door to make people accountable for their online behaviour has been pushed ajar. That anti-poverty campaigner Jack Monroe won £24,000 of damages from controversial columnist Katie Hopkins in a high-profile libel case earlier this year, may have widened the gap further. But what next?
Wanderers made a statement by preventing the accused supporter watching a game.
Some will inevitably argue this is an attempt to sanitise. Until the details of the case are divulged, it is difficult to judge whether the club has been heavy-handed on this occasion.
Opinions will never – and should never – be silenced, whether online or otherwise. But as everyone races to post theirs into cyberspace this evening should they be thinking twice about the content?
Source
