frankie Boyle

[mymatemax]

how can that awful bigoted idiot who seems to take enjoy targeting the disabled & those less able to defend themselves be awarded damages in a libel case.
It stinks, he constantly defends his right to speak out but sues when a paper publishes something he doesnt agree with.

The world has gone mad, something very wrong!

£50,000, disgusting.

People have been arrested for racism on Twitter, yet his vitriol (sp?) and venom towards the disabled is allowed to stand.

The world has indeed, gone mad.

Society is less and less accepting of racism (not saying it doesnt exist, cos it doez) publicly people are less openly racist & society is more outspoken about racism.
The sooner society viewed disablist comments in the same vein the better.

He says he is to donate the 54k to charity.. I wonder?

Re..Frankie Boyle- the world has gone mad....agreed. His 'comedy' is vile.
As an aside...
Media less accepting of racism ... Yes.
Publically people less openly racist... Don't agree. Obviously its not like the bad old days but i think It's got worse again in recent years and IMO it always does in times of recession.

He's giving the damages to charity.

Am I seeing things or has this thread moved??

Lollipop... yes looks like its moved??? I only posted in SN because I know how stronlgy some people on the SN board feel about him.
Oh well, I tried to select my audience, seems it didnt work!

I think Boyle was wrongly accused and the decision is fair. His comedy frequently hovers on the edges of poor taste and he occasionally offends but I don't think that means he deserves to be libelled.

If he'd been accused if being deliberately insulting there'd be no issue, as he clearly is. But apparently he's not racist. So I guess that makes everything else he says fine

It doesn't make everything he says fine. You can carry on criticising him for all the things that he does/says which are foul or mock the disabled.

But it is (rightly) illegal to criticise him (in a publication) for something that he did not do and that is why he won the case.

To draw a totally invented parallel, it would be similar if say Peter Sutcliffe took a libel case against a newspaper who accused him of perpetrating homosexual rape. He would win the case. Because those were not his crimes.

A libel victory makes no comment on whether the person is nice, nor whether their other actions/words are OK. Just whether the actual published comment about them is fair/accurate. And a racism accusation was shown not to be.

I do wonder if he can sue for being called a racist, why can't he be done for being disablist?
seems wrong to me that he can throw his toys out of the pram for being called names.
but happily be a disablist wanker.

But he so strongly defends his right to insult & offend under the guise of humour regardless of how accurate his words are YET as soon as someone publishes something he disagrees with he runs to the court. Tosser!

The Mirror should have just called him a nasty cunt then the defence is fair comment

Exactly, libel is not about insults, it's about defamation of character and material harm to reputation. As a public figure that trades on being controversial Boyle's audience accepts that as part of the package. If the Mirror had called him offensive, there would be no case to answer and he'd probably have treated it as good publicity. Racism - as John Terry has found recently to his cost - is not something you want to be branded with. The sponsors disappear, the doors are closed. If the incorrect accusation had been allowed to stand against Boyle it could have seriously damaged his career.

I really think the OP has missed the definition of libel.
The point is, he wasn't being racist. So he sued.
If people say he is vile and disgusting about disabled people, or women, or Glaswegians, then he doesn't sue (unless I have missed a story) because he clearly does say those things, repeatedly and in ever fouler forms.
The problem here is not him, per se, it is that society deems those groups of people to be not worth protecting against hate-speech.

Veritable... Not at all, I spend my working day analysing legal documents... My OP was not about a point of law. More a moan about a spineless twat who is happy to insult various members of society claiming its "funny" just to run to the courts as soon as he disagrees with something in print.

I dont doubt the ruling by the court is correct & proper... it's just bloody wrong!

How did Katie Price get on with her objections to his vulgar outburst re Harvey?? I cant remember if she tried legal reproach?

I know what you mean OP

You are not arguing the legality of the decision.
You are irritated that a total tosser who makes his living by mocking and sneering at defenceless groups in society is the first to screech and whine when he feels something is unfair.

A poster on here was sticking up for dear old Frankie and was mouthing off at me for trying to ban him when she found him funny. I pointed out that I certainly didn't want him banned, on the contrary I believed in free speech not least so that I could say that anyone who thinks he is funny is a total and utter cunt.

She reported me and never ever saw the irony

X-posted

Pagwatch - Thats what I was trying to say, but you are much more entertaining. Ever thought of doing stand-up

Legally he deserved to win his case and he was jubilant on Twitter yesterday saying he was glad to have been vindicated. I tweeted a reply that I would be glad when he stopped disguising his bigotry as "humour". The man is an utter arsehole of the highest order because only an arsehole would sink so low as to take the piss out of people who cannot defend themselves as he did.

I think the other poster was unintentionally way funnier