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

[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]

Yeah, well, even if you don't care whether the shirt is offending Christians or not, would you want your 5 year old to see a naked nun masturbating? I believe in freedom of speech but I still think the law should protect 3 year olds from pornographic material.
 
[quote name='vietgurl']Yeah, well, even if you don't care whether the shirt is offending Christians or not, would you want your 5 year old to see a naked nun masturbating? I believe in freedom of speech but I still think the law should protect 3 year olds from pornographic material.[/QUOTE]
"Won't somebody think of the children?!" is hell of played out. If kids are so fragile where they can't look at nudity without dying, they should be kept in cells until they're adults. Classes can be taught to them on closed circuit TV or through the internet.
 
I think that the T-shirt is just stupid, and they're just trying to shock people with crap like that. Shock value = media attention = money.
 
Regardless, and I don't know if this was mentioned earlier, he got what he was asking for -- an extreme variation of what he was asking for, but what he was asking for nonetheless.

"Shock value" is cheap. "Look at me. I worship Satan. Are you afraid?" Oooo. I'm scurred. Not that he was trying to convey this; but it's on the same path.

I like shocking stuff if it's tasteful and/or thought provoking or challenging to the mind -- this, on the other hand, is to get cheap reactions from people.
 
[quote name='Brak']Regardless, and I don't know if this was mentioned earlier, he got what he was asking for -- an extreme variation of what he was asking for, but what he was asking for nonetheless.

"Shock value" is cheap. "Look at me. I worship Satan. Are you afraid?" Oooo. I'm scurred. Not that he was trying to convey this; but it's on the same path.

I like shocking stuff if it's tasteful and/or thought provoking or challenging to the mind -- this, on the other hand, is to get cheap reactions from people.[/QUOTE]
And girls who get raped wearing provocative clothing? They totally got what they were asking for. An extreme variation, but what they were asking for nonetheless.
 
[quote name='jmcc']And girls who get raped wearing provocative clothing? They totally got what they were asking for. An extreme variation, but what they were asking for nonetheless.[/QUOTE]

That's... probably the dumbest thing I've ever read. Nice attempt at cramming words in my mouth, though.
 
[quote name='Brak']That's... probably the dumbest thing I've ever read. Nice attempt at cramming words in my mouth, though.[/QUOTE]
It's exactly the same as what you said. If you're upset by it, re-evaluate your own views.
 
[quote name='jmcc']It's exactly the same as what you said. If you're upset by it, re-evaluate your own views.[/QUOTE]

Again, with the cramming of words into my mouth.

Let's switch up the broad generalizations. A girl doesn't dress sexy with the intent of being raped; a British teen doesn't wear a Jesus is a cunt tshirt to keep warm.

He wore it to irk people. A shirt that displays the sentence "JESUS IS A CUNT" with a semi-nude nun masturbating. Why else would one wear something like that? To irk someone. Why else would that shirt have been made? To irk somone.

Whyever you're defending that shirt is beyond comprehension.

Let's drop the religious offense and look at it this way. Say you were a father, walking on the sidewalk with your son and a person wearing that shirt was walking in front of you. I wouldn't mind explaining to my kid what that shirt said, as he'll be exposed to stuff like that regardless; but, certainly, I'd rather he not have to see shit like that -- especially the front of the shirt. I'd rather my child not get an eyeful of bush and tits.
 
Also, people do a remarkable job of viewing the world with black and white eyes.

Protecting the rights of one person always stamps out the rights of another's, depending on how much of a pussy whichever side is.

Granted, take it with a grain of salt. I'm not offended by the shirt. The shirt was made and is worn to offend -- which is dickish. They're as much as a pussy as the people getting offended.
 
[quote name='Brak']Again, with the cramming of words into my mouth.

Let's switch up the broad generalizations. A girl doesn't dress sexy with the intent of being raped; a British teen doesn't wear a Jesus is a cunt tshirt to keep warm.

He wore it to irk people. A shirt that displays the sentence "JESUS IS A CUNT" with a semi-nude nun masturbating. Why else would one wear something like that? To irk someone. Why else would that shirt have been made? To irk somone.

Whyever you're defending that shirt is beyond comprehension.

Let's drop the religious offense and look at it this way. Say you were a father, walking on the sidewalk with your son and a person wearing that shirt was walking in front of you. I wouldn't mind explaining to my kid what that shirt said, as he'll be exposed to stuff like that regardless; but, certainly, I'd rather he not have to see shit like that -- especially the front of the shirt. I'd rather my child not get an eyeful of bush and tits.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter what his intent was. You're arguing that levying physical consquences against speech is alright, given a justification that "they were asking for it." The notion that you should be allowed to counter speech with anything other than speech is ridiculous.

And let's not say I'm a father in this case. I'm atypical in how I'd raise children. My kid would already have been exposed to the nude human form through both art and anatomy teachings. If they were over four years old I'd be disappointed if he or she didn't make the observation that the image bore a resemblance to Birth of Venus, actually.
 
[quote name='jmcc']It doesn't matter what his intent was. You're arguing that levying physical consquences against speech is alright, given a justification that "they were asking for it." The notion that you should be allowed to counter speech with anything other than speech is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say it was alright. And to make sure a cat didn't walk across my keyboard and type that I thought it was alright, I checked my posts. Never said it was alright for him to get arrested. He should have made a better choice than trying to shock a couple sticklers. Did a little kid seeing that shirt cross his mind? Probably. He knew what he was doing. He wanted to shock people (cheaply), and he did -- but to an extreme that he didn't want. Hence why I said he got what he wanted and didn't at the same time.

[quote name='jmcc']And let's not say I'm a father in this case. I'm atypical in how I'd raise children. My kid would already have been exposed to the nude human form through both art and anatomy teachings. If they were over four years old I'd be disappointed if he or she didn't make the observation that the image bore a resemblance to Birth of Venus, actually.[/QUOTE]

Black and white, as mentioned earlier. Nudity isn't always just nudity. Art isn't porn, porn isn't art.

It's all about intent. Nudity (the human body) can be a thing of beauty... and, sadly, it can be a thing of lust, filth and humiliation. Hence the "it's not child porn, it's art" scapegoat.

A nun fingering herself isn't something a child should be exposed to. And not just because it's a nun (or maybe especially, depending on how they're raised). A woman fingering herself isn't something a kid should see on the streets, period.

It appears as though you're choosing an extreme side of the issue at hand in that because he was arrested, you feel that it's alright that he wore that shirt. Personally, I don't care that he wore that shirt. My gripe is that he well aware of what he was doing and should have made a better, more selfless and cognitive choice.

Then again, cussing in public in front of children in the US is against the law. Is that trampling on freedom of speech, or protecting it (in the belief that children shouldn't hear that stuff)? Shades of grey.
 
[quote name='Brak']I'd have arrested him, too. Afterall, Cradle of Filth is terrible music.[/QUOTE]

And if you try to stick me with that, you're a smelly terd. :lol:

I do stand by that, though. Anyone with bad taste in music should be thrown in the slammer and cornholed with a broom handle.
 
[quote name='Brak']
I do stand by that, though. Anyone with bad taste in music should be thrown in the slammer and cornholed with a broom handle.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Brak']
White Zombie - El Phantasmo And The Chicken-Run Blast-O-Rama (Wine, Women And Song Mix)[/QUOTE]

:booty: :p :lol:
 
[quote name='Brak']I didn't say it was alright. And to make sure a cat didn't walk across my keyboard and type that I thought it was alright, I checked my posts. Never said it was alright for him to get arrested. He should have made a better choice than trying to shock a couple sticklers. Did a little kid seeing that shirt cross his mind? Probably. He knew what he was doing. He wanted to shock people (cheaply), and he did -- but to an extreme that he didn't want. Hence why I said he got what he wanted and didn't at the same time.[/quote]
I bolded what I'm talking about here, since you can't seem to spot it on your own. You're putting the blame on the victim here. He shouldn't have had to worry about making a "better choice," whatever that would be. In civil society, you should be free to say what you want. If people don't like it, they should be free to say what they want in return. Having to worry about getting arrested for expression is a sign of an unethical law, not that you may be doing something wrong.

[quote name='Brak']Black and white, as mentioned earlier. Nudity isn't always just nudity. Art isn't porn, porn isn't art.

It's all about intent. Nudity (the human body) can be a thing of beauty... and, sadly, it can be a thing of lust, filth and humiliation. Hence the "it's not child porn, it's art" scapegoat.

A nun fingering herself isn't something a child should be exposed to. And not just because it's a nun (or maybe especially, depending on how they're raised). A woman fingering herself isn't something a kid should see on the streets, period.[/quote]
No, nudity IS always just nudity. If a person can't look at it without an extreme reaction, then there's something wrong with their views on sexuality, not with the nudity itself.

[quote name='Brak']It appears as though you're choosing an extreme side of the issue at hand in that because he was arrested, you feel that it's alright that he wore that shirt. Personally, I don't care that he wore that shirt. My gripe is that he well aware of what he was doing and should have made a better, more selfless and cognitive choice.[/quote]
Again: he should not have had to worry about anything other than people on the street telling him he was a dick. That's it.

[quote name='Brak']Then again, cussing in public in front of children in the US is against the law. Is that trampling on freedom of speech, or protecting it (in the belief that children shouldn't hear that stuff)? Shades of grey.[/QUOTE]
Can you cite that law, please? And where people have been prosecuted under it and haven't had the verdict overturned in a higher court?
 
[quote name='MorbidAngel4Life']CoF is just misunderstood.[/QUOTE]
:lol: :lol: :lol:
It's funny that they try to after the "misunderstood" audience as well. :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
[quote name='jmcc']I bolded what I'm talking about here, since you can't seem to spot it on your own. You're putting the blame on the victim here. He shouldn't have had to worry about making a "better choice," whatever that would be. In civil society, you should be free to say what you want. If people don't like it, they should be free to say what they want in return. Having to worry about getting arrested for expression is a sign of an unethical law, not that you may be doing something wrong.[/quote]

Ok. Let's recap. You're acting as though he's wearing this as an artform. He wore it to press buttons; not to flaunt his freedom of speech.

Again, I never said I supported his arrest. The fact you return to that in every paragraph of your argument is getting tiresome. Yes; it's an issue... but I'm not speaking about his arrest, keeping in mind that you're trying to refute what I'm saying, even though I'm indirectly agreeing with you.

Like I said, it's childish, cheap, petty and pussypink to try and offend someone. That's what that shirt is. A catalyst for reactions. Plain and simple. If people were smart, they wouldn't react to it -- then again, that's why the shirt exists in the first place.

It's a bad choice to offend someone for the sake of offending someone. Bold my sentence all you want, but you know that's true. And if you don't, you've fooled yourself pretty well into thinking the contrary.

[quote name='jmcc']No, nudity IS always just nudity. If a person can't look at it without an extreme reaction, then there's something wrong with their views on sexuality, not with the nudity itself.[/quote]

That's a fairly elitist thing to say.

[quote name='jmcc']Again: he should not have had to worry about anything other than people on the street telling him he was a dick. That's it.[/quote]

Uh, yeah. That's kinda what I said.

[quote name='jmcc']Can you cite that law, please? And where people have been prosecuted under it and haven't had the verdict overturned in a higher court?[/QUOTE]

It was spoken about in a Cival Law class I had. The fact that you think I support the law because I mentioned it is border-line hysterical. And to go further, because of what I just mentioned, your mind went into overdrive of how absurd a law it is causing you to neglect the situation I created using that law as a basis.

Oh, well. Nevermind.

You're hard to talk with because you've consistantly neglected everything I've said, causing me to repeat myself multiple times.

Have fun with a rebuttle, although I am indirectly agreeing with you, save for your extremely black and white views on the standards of nudity -- I ain't gonna look at the topic again.
 
[quote name='Brak']Ok. Let's recap. You're acting as though he's wearing this as an artform. He wore it to press buttons; not to flaunt his freedom of speech.[/quote]
How does his intent have anything to do with it? You don't have to qualify expression with a political goal.

[quote name='Brak']Again, I never said I supported his arrest. The fact you return to that in every paragraph of your argument is getting tiresome. Yes; it's an issue... but I'm not speaking about his arrest, keeping in mind that you're trying to refute what I'm saying, even though I'm indirectly agreeing with you.

Like I said, it's childish, cheap, petty and pussypink to try and offend someone. That's what that shirt is. A catalyst for reactions. Plain and simple. If people were smart, they wouldn't react to it -- then again, that's why the shirt exists in the first place.

It's a bad choice to offend someone for the sake of offending someone. Bold my sentence all you want, but you know that's true. And if you don't, you've fooled yourself pretty well into thinking the contrary.[/quote]
Why do you think it's a bad choice? If you agree that there shouldn't be physical consequences to expression, then why is it bad?

[quote name='Brak']That's a fairly elitist thing to say.[/quote]
How so? Do you think there's something inherently bad about depictions of sex? It's more harmful to a child to see a parent have such a negative reaction to sexuality than exposure to the sex itself.

[quote name='Brak']It was spoken about in a Cival Law class I had. The fact that you think I support the law because I mentioned it is border-line hysterical. And to go further, because of what I just mentioned, your mind went into overdrive of how absurd a law it is causing you to neglect the situation I created using that law as a basis.[/quote]
It's not that I think you support it, it's that I don't believe it.
 
[quote name='jmcc']How does his intent have anything to do with it? You don't have to qualify expression with a political goal.[/quote]

But that's the thing. Peoples' views on what expression is, what freedom of speech is and so on is branched from physically displaying yourself outside of the norm -- often more blatant than blatant.

I have a couple shirts with cuss words on them, among other questional things. If I'm around a kid (and I'm talking little kid), I'll go out of my way to conceal it. It's a selfless thing to do. Now, I'm not placing myself on some saint pedestal for doing that, but I don't understand why others don't -- especially with a shirt as extreme as that.

[quote name='jmcc']Why do you think it's a bad choice? If you agree that there shouldn't be physical consequences to expression, then why is it bad?[/quote]

I think it's a bad choice because it targets a group of people. Now, me being a Christian (so to speak), I'm not offended by it. It's just a stupid shirt, afterall. But others will be ofended by it. Let me make note, again, that it's targeting a group of people. One could compare it to some jackass wearing a Nazi tshirt, or so on.

It's a cheap form of "expression" -- not challenging in the least. It's just another one of those shirts. I could go to TshirtHell and buy a shirt equal to that -- but I won't, as they're lame. I appreciate things that are tastefully controversial and challenging to the mind.

[quote name='jmcc']How so? Do you think there's something inherently bad about depictions of sex? It's more harmful to a child to see a parent have such a negative reaction to sexuality than exposure to the sex itself.[/quote]

No. Not at all. Then again, this shirt isn't just "sex". I think a child seeing a nun fingering herself would be more of a negative (if not confusing) reaction to sex than any negative reaction that a parent is capable of.

But, then again, some people are terrible parents.

[quote name='jmcc']It's not that I think you support it, it's that I don't believe it.[/QUOTE]

Well, it's real, man. Look into it. There are other laws similar that are rarely, if not ever, enforced. And I'm not talking about those "Crazy Laws", or whatever.

Regardless, the point in that law was that "Freedom of Speech" can go either way. Cussing in public in front of children being illegal can be considered stamping out one's freedom of speech -- on the same coin, it protects the speech of another (the children).

It was an example of shades of grey in "speech".
 
I'm torn here; while I don't think anyone should be arrested or legally cited for wearing such a shirt, I try to imagine my reaction to something that is an insulting article of clothing, but not religiously so. Perhaps a "Skrewdriver" t-shirt, or a "50 Cent is a dumb jigaboo" shirt, instead of "Jesus is a Cunt." Does the CoF shirt bother me? Nope. Do my hypothetical shirts? Yep. I suppose it's a matter of taste, rather than anything legal.

Citing a person for an offensive shirt is one thing; perhaps if there is an intent to incite (didn't Bruce Willis wear a racist sandwich board in Harlem in one of those awful Die Hard movies?), then there might be a legal issue. Considering the recent riots in Toledo, Ohio; a person wearing a shirt identifying them as a white supremacist is doing so as a means of both demonstration and incitement. To wear something to legally provoke someone is *very* difficult to prove legally, though, so forget all that.

I guess I'm of the opinion that this should not be a legal matter in any form. I'm not concerned about hiding my child's eyes from the world. What goes on in public is not going to approach puritanism any time soon (perhaps to the dismay of Mr. Unoriginal ;)), so I don't see any function in trying to shelter a child.

While it is not a legal issue, my moral predicament would put me in a position where I would, if I had the resources (i.e., people other than myself), kick the living fuck out of someone wearing a racist shirt. Perhaps I should, with that in mind, afford those same liberties to someone who is offended by the CoF shirt? I dunno, really.

Lastly, to play into an ad hominem others may have, for Brak to criticize CoF's music, given that he is a huge Rob Zombie fan, is akin to the pot calling the kettle cliche.
 
[quote name='MorbidAngel4Life']Nonsense. CoF is just misunderstood.[/QUOTE]

No, we all understand....that they suck.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Lastly, to play into an ad hominem others may have, for Brak to criticize CoF's music, given that he is a huge Rob Zombie fan, is akin to the pot calling the kettle cliche.[/QUOTE]

That's like calling the apple an orange.

Edit: Actually, that's more like call the apple a porcupine.
 
[quote name='The VGM']No, we all understand....that they suck.[/QUOTE]

I'm not going to argue with you.

[quote name='zewone']:lol: :lol: :lol:
It's funny that they try to after the "misunderstood" audience as well. :lol: :lol: :lol:[/QUOTE]

Hmm?
 
[quote name='Rozz']I think that the T-shirt is just stupid, and they're just trying to shock people with crap like that. Shock value = media attention = money.[/QUOTE]

BUT, it gets them publicity, which is pretty much what every band wants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top