freedom of speech?
 

Liverpool are investigating striker Nathan Eccleston for comments on Twitter that suggested the 11 September attacks were not the work of terrorists.

A tweet that has since been taken down said: "I ain't going to say attack don't let the media make u believe that was terrorist that did it. #OTIS."

OTIS reportedly stands for Only the Illuminati Succeed.

The 20-year-old has made nine first-team appearances for Liverpool.
Analysis
Continue reading the main story
Ben Dirs,
BBC Sport

An irony of Twitter is that while it affords sportspeople an element of control, allowing them to bypass irksome journalists who might twist their message, it also takes control away
Ben's blog on Twitter usage (published January 2011)

A club statement said: "The club takes this matter extremely seriously and senior club officials have informed Nathan Eccleston that we are undertaking an investigation into the circumstances surrounding these postings and will decide on an appropriate course of action."

Eccleston, who has over 39,000 followers on the social-networking site, has since tweeted: "If you don't like what I have to say un follow me!! Some things get took way out of context..."



why should someone be punished for expressing an off the cuff remark
people not allowed to express an opinion anymore?

fundamentalist muslims can burn poppies and call for the heads of soldiers and nothing is done

why this player being investigated and possibly punished?

That's pretty stupid, as ludicrous as the view is he's entitled to his opinion, and if he believes conspiracy theories that's his choice.

Investigating this is totally unfair.

He's an idiot but he shouldn't be punished for expressing an unpopular opinion.

Presumably this man has so many followers because he plays for Liverpool and is therefore representing them. His contract probably has a clause covering his conduct when dealing with the press and on sites like Twitter so as not to bring the club he is representing into disrepute or attract negative press attention. If he was an ordinary member of the public there wouldn't have been a problem with him expressing a personal opinion. I have no idea what's in his contract, but my best guess is that this has less to do with freedom of speech and more to do with contractual obligation.

The original article doesnt mention punishment, http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/14914280.stm it says they are looking into the incident and will take appropriate action.

That might simply mean giving the twat a bit of a briefing about making dullard posts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/14914280.stm

And there indeed, is the answer as highlighed in Omah's quote from the news.

Eccleston :joker:

The guy is an idiot who talks too much on twitter and always puts his foot in it, I am hoping we use this as an excuse to terminate his contract, he is not good enough to make it here anyway.

:joker:

Someone should tell him "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

Mark Twain (1835-1910)

;)

Last season he was loaned out to Charlton and couldn't get in the first team, he was always on the bench. Instead of doing the right thing and either proving himself in training or having a talk with the manager, he went on twitter moaning all week.

He doesn't have the right attitude at all.

9/11 was a false flag attack and mark twain would agree :xyxwave:

Your proof ?

:idc:

he saw a youtube video about it.

i saw it in the tea leaves you're drinking

double post

"drinking" tea leaves ?

:conf:

:shocked: you must be an alien monster

No Omah is in reality Kooragg the Bailful, Destroyer of universes and celebrities taking liberties.

no i have seen 911 videos about it

On YouTube ..... :laugh2:

What amazes me is that any professional footballer has their own account any more. It's pretty well known that people like Peter Andre and the likes don't post their own messages on social networking sites. It's all done by their management teams, posting whatever they feel the public want to see.

It has nothing to do with feedom of speech, because it was his private comments, and his employer is a private business.

Freedom of speech, also means freedom of reaction from others.

He is free to say 9/11 was a conspiracy all he likes. Liverpoll football club is not stopping his freedom of speech.

The government has done nothing to limit his freedom of speech. If it has nothing to do with the government then it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Private companies like Liverpool can choose what their employees say, it has nothing to do with the RIGHT to freedom of speech. He's free to say whatever he likes, and the company is free to choose who they want to employ.

If they punish him, it's because he is a employee.

This would only be a free speech issue if the government brought charges against him, which the government does sometimes, with super-injunctions.

If you want to worry about free speech issues, worry about super injunctions, not this.

This is not a freedom of speech issue.