British Teen Arrested for wearing Cradle of Filth Shirt.(NSFW)

MorbidAngel4Life

MorbidAngel4Life

CAGiversary!
http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=43524

According to a story published in the October 18, 2005 edition of the Metro newspaper, a British teenage heavy metal fan has been handed a community service order for wearing an offensive t-shirt.

Adam Shepherd, 19, was reportedly convicted under new anti-hate laws which ban people from displaying religiously insulting signs.

The teenager was arrested after a woman complained to police when she saw his shirt, which promotes extreme heavy metal band CRADLE OF FILTH.

The t-shirt shows a picture of a nun in a pornographic pose. On the back is a comment about Jesus (view the t-shirt design at this location). The top was being worn by Shepherd's girlfriend when a police officer approached her. As soon as the teenager realized there was a problem, he told the officer it was his and swapped tops with his girlfriend. But he refused to take it off or cover it up and was arrested.

Shepherd, who bought the shirt in his hometown of Weymouth, Dorset, admitted the charge. Weymouth magistrates gave him 80 hours community service and told him to pay £40 costs (approx. $71).

Meanwhile, MediaWatchWatch.org.uk reports that Adam "can't have been prosecuted under the 'new anti-hate laws' because they do not exist." However, a bit of research shows that the wearing of this T-shirt has led to at least two previous convictions in the U.K.

Dale Wilson, 35, of Norwich, was arrested by two police officers as he walked to the newsagents on Halloween 2004. He pleaded guilty to "religiously aggravated offensive conduct." He was eventually discharged and told to "grow up." He paid £150 costs (approx. $266), and the judge ordered that the T-shirt be destroyed.

Back in 1997, Rob Kenyon, 29, of London was found guilty of committing the offense of "Profane Representation under the 1839 Act" by Bow Street Magistrates Court. He was fined £150.

CRADLE OF FILTH drummer Nicholas Barker was also arrested in Dover and charged with "creating a public disorder" for wearing the same t-shirt. There were no further proceedings against him.

From the NME: In 2001, the then-Lord Provost of Glasgow, Alex Mosson, campaigned to have the t-shirt prevented from being sold at Tower Records. The record shop was raided on two occasions by police, and eventually agreed to stop stocking the garment. The Catholic League of America, back in 1998 (amusing "Victory for Sickos" story) and 1999 (their call to action), also complained bitterly about the t-shirt.

BGCTCF15.jpg


All that crap for a t-shirt.
​
 
[quote name='MorbidAngel4Life']
http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=43524

According to a story published in the October 18, 2005 edition of the Metro newspaper, a British teenage heavy metal fan has been handed a community service order for wearing an offensive t-shirt.

Adam Shepherd, 19, was reportedly convicted under new anti-hate laws which ban people from displaying religiously insulting signs.

The teenager was arrested after a woman complained to police when she saw his shirt, which promotes extreme heavy metal band CRADLE OF FILTH.

The t-shirt shows a picture of a nun in a pornographic pose. On the back is a comment about Jesus (view the t-shirt design at this location). The top was being worn by Shepherd's girlfriend when a police officer approached her. As soon as the teenager realized there was a problem, he told the officer it was his and swapped tops with his girlfriend. But he refused to take it off or cover it up and was arrested.

Shepherd, who bought the shirt in his hometown of Weymouth, Dorset, admitted the charge. Weymouth magistrates gave him 80 hours community service and told him to pay £40 costs (approx. $71).

Meanwhile, MediaWatchWatch.org.uk reports that Adam "can't have been prosecuted under the 'new anti-hate laws' because they do not exist." However, a bit of research shows that the wearing of this T-shirt has led to at least two previous convictions in the U.K.

Dale Wilson, 35, of Norwich, was arrested by two police officers as he walked to the newsagents on Halloween 2004. He pleaded guilty to "religiously aggravated offensive conduct." He was eventually discharged and told to "grow up." He paid £150 costs (approx. $266), and the judge ordered that the T-shirt be destroyed.

Back in 1997, Rob Kenyon, 29, of London was found guilty of committing the offense of "Profane Representation under the 1839 Act" by Bow Street Magistrates Court. He was fined £150.

CRADLE OF FILTH drummer Nicholas Barker was also arrested in Dover and charged with "creating a public disorder" for wearing the same t-shirt. There were no further proceedings against him.

From the NME: In 2001, the then-Lord Provost of Glasgow, Alex Mosson, campaigned to have the t-shirt prevented from being sold at Tower Records. The record shop was raided on two occasions by police, and eventually agreed to stop stocking the garment. The Catholic League of America, back in 1998 (amusing "Victory for Sickos" story) and 1999 (their call to action), also complained bitterly about the t-shirt.

BGCTCF15.jpg


All that crap for a t-shirt.
​
[/QUOTE]

That's disgusting. I don't know about arrested, but suspended or expelled, sure.
 
How is it sick? It's freedom of expression, something it seems Britain doesn't allow.

And I agree, he shouldn't have been arrested. It's bullshit.
 
[quote name='Tiphireth']That's disgusting. I don't know about arrested, but suspended or expelled, sure.[/QUOTE]
Yes. No one should be offended ever.
 
I'd suggest that they weave some sort of sterilization drug into the fabric of those t-shirts, so that people that wear them wouldn't be able to reproduce, but it's probably a moot point.
 
Meh.. why isn't there a website about t-shirts causing problems for people?
I'm offended by people other than me driving cars... ARREST THEM! People whine too much. Worry about yourself, eh?
 
[quote name='jmcc']Yes. No one should be offended ever.[/QUOTE]

Wait, wait. Nevermind, I thought this was at a school. :oops:
 
Seriously...what if Jesus was a Cunt? he did throw around all those vendors tables outside the temple...thats approaching at least "Dickish"
 
Then again, British people aren't allowed to keep porcelain piggy banks out in public view, in case they offend a Muslim.
 
I'm not sure about obscenity laws in the u.k. but, in the u.s., you cannot publicly display nude images. That alone would indicate they have a case, since anyone (including little kids) could be exposed to a pornographic image by looking at that shirt.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']...in the u.s., you cannot publicly display nude images...[/QUOTE]
Cite, please? If true, museums are totally going down.
 
[quote name='jmcc']Cite, please? If true, museums are totally going down.[/QUOTE]

isnt that why theres no softcore porn on fox?
 
There is a huge double standard with this. If it was a t-shirt saying fuck the Koran or Allah is a pussy most of you would be up in arms saying the opposite, but since its making fun of Christians its ok because of the first ammendment.
 
[quote name='rodeojones903']There is a huge double standard with this. If it was a t-shirt saying fuck the Koran or Allah is a pussy most of you would be up in arms saying the opposite.[/QUOTE]

Generalizations are fun!
 
[quote name='rodeojones903']There is a huge double standard with this. If it was a t-shirt saying fuck the Koran or Allah is a pussy most of you would be up in arms saying the opposite, but since its making fun of Christians its ok because of the first ammendment.[/QUOTE]

why dont you go test that theory out? be sure not to get shot enough so you die. make like 50 cent and survive 8 shots.
 
If it was in public, I think he was right to be arrested or fined . That is not something that should be paraded around for little kids to see freely. Its not something you can avoid because you know where to find it like a pron shop or whatnot.
The text is offensive im sure to christians, but not as explicit as a naked lady in a suggestive pose in your face.

Freedom of expression does not mean freedom to offend everyone you can. Does that mean we can wear anything we want like pictures of dead jews in a ditch from ww2 or a shirt with the picture of one of the beheading victims in iraq? Surely not. I hate it when people cry freedom of expression or censorship over crap like this.

There is a time and a place to wear stuff like that and walking down the highstreet in the middle of the day is not one of them.
 
[quote name='2poor']why dont you go test that theory out? be sure not to get shot enough so you die. make like 50 cent and survive 8 shots.[/QUOTE]

You're agreeing with him, you know.
 
[quote name='rodeojones903']There is a huge double standard with this. If it was a t-shirt saying fuck the Koran or Allah is a pussy most of you would be up in arms saying the opposite, but since its making fun of Christians its ok because of the first ammendment.[/QUOTE]

I agree. I bet I could come up with some interesting phrases that would have everyone here up in arms. But a knock against Christianity? Sure, why not. :roll:
 
[quote name='jmcc']Cite, please? If true, museums are totally going down.[/QUOTE]

Well, sexually explicit ones. Art in or outside a museum is different from a nun masturbating.
 
[quote name='Noodle Pirate!']If it was in public, I think he was right to be arrested or fined . That is not something that should be paraded around for little kids to see freely. Its not something you can avoid because you know where to find it like a pron shop or whatnot.
The text is offensive im sure to christians, but not as explicit as a naked lady in a suggestive pose in your face.

Freedom of expression does not mean freedom to offend everyone you can. Does that mean we can wear anything we want like pictures of dead jews in a ditch from ww2 or a shirt with the picture of one of the beheading victims in iraq? Surely not. I hate it when people cry freedom of expression or censorship over crap like this.

There is a time and a place to wear stuff like that and walking down the highstreet in the middle of the day is not one of them.[/QUOTE]
Freedom of speech doesn't actually apply in this case, as it was in England, but if it were here, yes, that would be exactly what it means. Unless what you're saying causes physical harm to people, like yelling "fire" in a movie theatre, it's protected.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well, sexually explicit ones. Art in or outside a museum is different from a nun masturbating.[/QUOTE]
Who says?
 
[quote name='jmcc']Freedom of speech doesn't actually apply in this case, as it was in England, but if it were here, yes, that would be exactly what it means. Unless what you're saying causes physical harm to people, like yelling "fire" in a movie theatre, it's protected.[/QUOTE]

Is it really that cut and dry? Say I yell at while pointing at you "this guy raped a little boy!" Sure I'm allowed to SAY it, but I can also be prosecuted for my actions.
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']Is it really that cut and dry? Say I yell at while pointing at you "this guy raped a little boy!" Sure I'm allowed to SAY it, but I can also be prosecuted for my actions.[/QUOTE]
Ok, if you want to use slander as an example of a limit to speech, can you explain how it would apply in this case?
 
[quote name='jmcc']Ok, if you want to use slander as an example of a limit to speech, can you explain how it would apply in this case?[/QUOTE]

Of course, it doesn't, I was merely pointing out that I don't think you can only limit free speech when it applies to physical harm.
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']Of course, it doesn't, I was merely pointing out that I don't think you can only limit free speech when it applies to physical harm.[/QUOTE]
Well, there's still harm demonstrated in a slander case, though. Lost wages and the like.
 
[quote name='jmcc']Well, there's still harm demonstrated in a slander case, though. Lost wages and the like.[/QUOTE]

True. It would be a slippery slope, but I could see a parent suing for emotional damages to their children from seeing this. I wouldn't agree with a lawsuit like that, but I would honestly be suprised if free speech allowed me to walk around Times Square wear a shirt that had a spread eagle porn star on it.
 
I don't think that shirt is that bad. However people getting offend really easy. When I worked at walmart my friend worked photo lab and he was cleaning a negative lens. I said "why are you blowing that off to get rid of dust for the scan?"

This lady looked at me all pissed of cause I said blow. I knew it was cause of that she had like 3 little kids with her. She gave me that look like you fat disgusting son of a bitch. I also see the hypocritical offend person in my parents line of work. That pisses me off more then anything. They want to protest but they are in the same boat as us and don't realize it.
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']True. It would be a slippery slope, but I could see a parent suing for emotional damages to their children from seeing this. I wouldn't agree with a lawsuit like that, but I would honestly be suprised if free speech allowed me to walk around Times Square wear a shirt that had a spread eagle porn star on it.[/QUOTE]
Ah, but there lies the rub in that case. The emotional damage case (probably monetary loss, too, now that I think of it) would be made in civil court, not criminal. You can sue for whatever wacky crap you want there, so free speech is moot if you're convincing enough a victim.
 
[quote name='jmcc']Ah, but there lies the rub in that case. The emotional damage case (probably monetary loss, too, now that I think of it) would be made in civil court, not criminal. You can sue for whatever wacky crap you want there, so free speech is moot if you're convincing enough a victim.[/QUOTE]

Well that would make sense. I would still be interested in seeing something about freedom of speech and where it runs into indecency laws etc.
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']Well that would make sense. I would still be interested in seeing something about freedom of speech and where it runs into indecency laws etc.[/QUOTE]
Keep an eye on the news these days. There's recently been a crackdown on obscenity in the US here. It will be interesting to see how many of the cases are thrown out.
 
Um, this isn't a freedom of speech issue, it is a t-shirt with a naked nun with a finger up her vagina and her naked bobbies hanging out.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Um, this isn't a freedom of speech issue, it is a t-shirt with a naked nun with a finger up her vagina and her naked bobbies hanging out.[/QUOTE]
No, it's not a freedom of speech issue, as it's based out of England. If it were here, it would be.
 
look at it like this, think how you will feel when the police arrest you for wearing a shirt or saying something that you think is ok. yes most people dont want to see a nun masterbating on a tshirt in public but what gives them the right to decide what this kid can or can not wear. if i am offended by all of the christian ideology that is bandied about on tv in america what recourse do I have to get it all taken off the air as well as no more christian tshirts or other paraphanelia? none. why? because the christians(catholics, evangelists, etc.) have brainwashed us americans into believing that only what they say is right. its the views of the minority(christians and most other religious groups) that are imposed on the majority(everyone else) which is unfair. if this english kid really believed that JC is a big C then it is his *ironically* god given right to voice that opinion in any way he so chooses. some of the people in this post have said "oh that band sucks he should be arrested" and that is the comment of an unintelligent person. you dont like the band but what right do you have to say he cant wear the shirt? none. nowadays in america "free speech" really means free speech for me but not you because you think differently. i dont believe this kid should have had any action taken against him at all. freedom is not something easily gained yet people oh so easily throw it away by supporting decisions like this in the U.K. this type of thing will one day result in a country where the government tells you what color shirt to wear monday-sunday and how to put your pants on. no free thought, no free actions and no free speech. think about that next time you decide someone cant wear a shirt they like because it "offends" you because next time it will be you offending someone else.
 
[quote name='thechairmanh2k']look at it like this, think how you will feel when the police arrest you for wearing a shirt or saying something that you think is ok. yes most people dont want to see a nun masterbating on a tshirt in public but what gives them the right to decide what this kid can or can not wear. if i am offended by all of the christian ideology that is bandied about on tv in america what recourse do I have to get it all taken off the air as well as no more christian tshirts or other paraphanelia? none. why? because the christians(catholics, evangelists, etc.) have brainwashed us americans into believing that only what they say is right. its the views of the minority(christians and most other religious groups) that are imposed on the majority(everyone else) which is unfair. if this english kid really believed that JC is a big C then it is his *ironically* god given right to voice that opinion in any way he so chooses. some of the people in this post have said "oh that band sucks he should be arrested" and that is the comment of an unintelligent person. you dont like the band but what right do you have to say he cant wear the shirt? none. nowadays in america "free speech" really means free speech for me but not you because you think differently. i dont believe this kid should have had any action taken against him at all. freedom is not something easily gained yet people oh so easily throw it away by supporting decisions like this in the U.K. this type of thing will one day result in a country where the government tells you what color shirt to wear monday-sunday and how to put your pants on. no free thought, no free actions and no free speech. think about that next time you decide someone cant wear a shirt they like because it "offends" you because next time it will be you offending someone else.[/QUOTE]
Large, unformatted blocks of text offend my eyeballs.
 
I'd have arrested him, too. Afterall, Cradle of Filth is terrible music.
 
[quote name='Brak']I'd have arrested him, too. Afterall, Cradle of Filth is terrible music.[/QUOTE]
I think we've reached critical mass on that joke here now.
 
[quote name='thechairmanh2k']look at it like this, think how you will feel when the police arrest you for wearing a shirt or saying something that you think is ok. yes most people dont want to see a nun masterbating on a tshirt in public but what gives them the right to decide what this kid can or can not wear. if i am offended by all of the christian ideology that is bandied about on tv in america what recourse do I have to get it all taken off the air as well as no more christian tshirts or other paraphanelia? none. why? because the christians(catholics, evangelists, etc.) have brainwashed us americans into believing that only what they say is right. its the views of the minority(christians and most other religious groups) that are imposed on the majority(everyone else) which is unfair. if this english kid really believed that JC is a big C then it is his *ironically* god given right to voice that opinion in any way he so chooses. some of the people in this post have said "oh that band sucks he should be arrested" and that is the comment of an unintelligent person. you dont like the band but what right do you have to say he cant wear the shirt? none. nowadays in america "free speech" really means free speech for me but not you because you think differently. i dont believe this kid should have had any action taken against him at all. freedom is not something easily gained yet people oh so easily throw it away by supporting decisions like this in the U.K. this type of thing will one day result in a country where the government tells you what color shirt to wear monday-sunday and how to put your pants on. no free thought, no free actions and no free speech. think about that next time you decide someone cant wear a shirt they like because it "offends" you because next time it will be you offending someone else.[/QUOTE]

Stick to lurking.
 
[quote name='The VGM']They were too easy on him. Anyone who likes Cradle of Filth should be shot.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Brak']I'd have arrested him, too. Afterall, Cradle of Filth is terrible music.[/QUOTE]

Nonsense. CoF is just misunderstood. Besides, the shirt is just a joke. They put out shirts like that all the time as it is. Like, "Your Mother Should Have Swallowed".
 
[quote name='jmcc']I think we've reached critical mass on that joke here now.[/QUOTE]

Who said it was a joke?
 
[quote name='thechairmanh2k']look at it like this, think how you will feel when the police arrest you for wearing a shirt or saying something that you think is ok. yes most people dont want to see a nun masterbating on a tshirt in public but what gives them the right to decide what this kid can or can not wear. if i am offended by all of the christian ideology that is bandied about on tv in america what recourse do I have to get it all taken off the air as well as no more christian tshirts or other paraphanelia? none. why? because the christians(catholics, evangelists, etc.) have brainwashed us americans into believing that only what they say is right. its the views of the minority(christians and most other religious groups) that are imposed on the majority(everyone else) which is unfair. if this english kid really believed that JC is a big C then it is his *ironically* god given right to voice that opinion in any way he so chooses. some of the people in this post have said "oh that band sucks he should be arrested" and that is the comment of an unintelligent person. you dont like the band but what right do you have to say he cant wear the shirt? none. nowadays in america "free speech" really means free speech for me but not you because you think differently. i dont believe this kid should have had any action taken against him at all. freedom is not something easily gained yet people oh so easily throw it away by supporting decisions like this in the U.K. this type of thing will one day result in a country where the government tells you what color shirt to wear monday-sunday and how to put your pants on. no free thought, no free actions and no free speech. think about that next time you decide someone cant wear a shirt they like because it "offends" you because next time it will be you offending someone else.[/QUOTE]

fuck the haters, right on dude!

I was thinking about this - and thinking about how I would feel if they attacked philisiophically sound religions - and I thought - hey, I might find it distasteful, i can fight/argue/rally against it, but it should still be allowed.

Now the kid should probably take it off because little kids might be around (that is bad of course). But otherwise, taking the piss out of the catholic chuch (you know - the one with the priests who like little boys) should be fair game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top