Morrissey and his links to paedophiles? - thecolemanexperience

bhops

Last of the famous international screw ups.
Posting a link certainly has caused a lot of reaction. I want people to discredit the site, but instead most are attacking my decision to draw attention to it.

Correct David, the fact is that it was obviously sitting there in cyberspace without getting many hits, quietly dying away and now it is on the front page of the biggest Morrissey website on the internet. Why give a platform to idiocy when it would far better to let it just waste away? The object of a blog piece like that is get to as much traction as possible and stir up as much hate as possible. Now for that to happen the blog needs to get as many hits as possible. By putting it on the front page you've just achieved that. You must also know that a lot of larger news sites have a feed to Morrissey-Solo for any breaking news. So if this blows up as story they are literally gonna take the headline, turn it into 'Morrissey is accused of links to pedophilia' and that is what is gonna run on their front page. You then get Sid and Doris Bonkers reading that news feed and going "well now Morrissey's a kiddy fiddler, doesn't surprise me."

That's how things work and you know that's how things work. Throw mud and sticks even if it isn't the truth. I generally support free speech but sometimes even a site like this has to draw the line somewhere. I mean if I start a blog saying Morrissey likes f***ing animals, draw a few tenuous links about how he encourages people not to eat the animals but to 'love' the animals, show a picture of Moz 'stroking' a turkey's neck are you going to post that up on the front page as well? I would hope not.
 

bhops

Last of the famous international screw ups.
So we should all just be left unaware of information about such sites?
I think it's important to know what people are saying.

I do admit it is hard to take him too seriously when he can't even register his own domain but he is putting things out there that will turn up in google searches and people will read. I was able to click on a link that takes you to the article itself which does allow comments on that article rather than the whole site.

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpre...-cancels-planned-concerts-with-cliff-richard/

In a word, 'yes.' I don't think it is important to know what some hateful nutcase is thinking. None at all.
 

CrystalGeezer

My secret's my enzyme.
K

keene

Guest
Personally I think the thread should remain; I'm enjoying the comments surrounding David's decision to post this!

Yeah.....maybe it should stay up...... Right where it is.

A testament to the awareness and brain power of david t. and the mental midgets (mouse brains) that support it.
 

CrystalGeezer

My secret's my enzyme.
Correct David, the fact is that it was obviously sitting there in cyberspace without getting many hits, quietly dying away and now it is on the front page of the biggest Morrissey website on the internet. Why give a platform to idiocy when it would far better to let it just waste away? The object of a blog piece like that is get to as much traction as possible and stir up as much hate as possible. Now for that to happen the blog needs to get as many hits as possible. By putting it on the front page you've just achieved that. You must also know that a lot of larger news sites have a feed to Morrissey-Solo for any breaking news. So if this blows up as story they are literally gonna take the headline, turn it into 'Morrissey is accused of links to pedophilia' and that is what is gonna run on their front page. You then get Sid and Doris Bonkers reading that news feed and going "well now Morrissey's a kiddy fiddler, doesn't surprise me."

That's how things work and you know that's how things work. Throw mud and sticks even if it isn't the truth. I generally support free speech but sometimes even a site like this has to draw the line somewhere. I mean if I start a blog saying Morrissey likes f***ing animals, draw a few tenuous links about how he encourages people not to eat the animals but to 'love' the animals, show a picture of Moz 'stroking' a turkey's neck are you going to post that up on the front page as well? I would hope not.

This. Also the fact that it isn't even new, that he was saving it for a rainy day sorta speaks volumes.
 

RobLand

Visitor since 1997
Although I guess I might not have posted this if I were David, I'd like to say that he makes a good point about the Diana/Moz connection theory posts. I also felt that those didn't warrant being on the main page, but it's not my site. And when things like this happen, I like to remind myself of all the work (unpaid work) that goes into a site like this. So what if there's a mistake (IMHO) now and again? Moz-solo is a gift to all of us (and Morrissey really). So you know, I think we should get off David's back. Please don't flame me :D
 

Carly

Active Member
Although I guess I might not have posted this if I were David, I'd like to say that he makes a good point about the Diana/Moz connection theory posts. I also felt that those didn't warrant being on the main page, but it's not my site. And when things like this happen, I like to remind myself of all the work (unpaid work) that goes into a site like this. So what if there's a mistake (IMHO) now and again? Moz-solo is a gift to all of us (and Morrissey really). So you know, I think we should get off David's back. Please don't flame me :D
This is completely different to the moz/diana thing. this was some daft blogger saying his tour was cancelled because he had a connection to Cliff Richard, this person probably doesn't know Moz has a history of constant cancellations.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Although I guess I might not have posted this if I were David, I'd like to say that he makes a good point about the Diana/Moz connection theory posts. I also felt that those didn't warrant being on the main page, but it's not my site. And when things like this happen, I like to remind myself of all the work (unpaid work) that goes into a site like this. So what if there's a mistake (IMHO) now and again? Moz-solo is a gift to all of us (and Morrissey really). So you know, I think we should get off David's back. Please don't flame me :D

But the Diana/Moz posts were about a film that was made.
And that was so bonkers as to be harmless.
This is some paranoid fantasist making unfounded accusations in a culture of hysteria surrounding this very subject, and one where the British police appear to be alerting the media before houses are searched (before anything is found, before anyone has been arrested, let alone convicted, etc). This is dangerous and irresponsible.
 
This just in:

"Whatever small chance there was for a Smiths reunion or Marr collaboration has now been officially wiped out! Johnny will surely not want to be associated with a purported and widely publicized alleged pedophile. Thanks davidt - the Smiths is truly dead.
Please send letters of complaint (or thanks, if you're one of those) to Morrissey-Solo c/o David Tseng."

All kidding aside, for what it's worth, the article should not have been promoted to the main page. It's not a free-speech issue - the job of a newspaper or blog editor is to determine credibility - this "story" has none.
 

bhops

Last of the famous international screw ups.
This just in:

"Whatever small chance there was for a Smiths reunion or Marr collaboration has now been officially wiped out! Johnny will surely not want to be associated with a purported and widely publicized alleged pedophile. Thanks davidt - the Smiths is truly dead.
Please send letters of complaint (or thanks, if you're one of those) to Morrissey-Solo c/o David Tseng."

All kidding aside, for what it's worth, the article should not have been promoted to the main page. It's not a free-speech issue - the job of a newspaper or blog editor is to determine credibility - this "story" has none.

An excellent point. Otherwise why not just post every crack pot story out there. I think Viva also made an excellent point, this sets a very dangerous precedent.
 

2-J

Member
If someone painted "paedo" on your front door, would you leave it there?

That's a false analogy because in that case someone would have damaged your property, trespassed, invaded your private space, etc - none of which applies in this case of a posting of a link on an internet fansite.

I do happen to believe in freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is taken very seriously in US law. Freedom of speech doesn't mean the freedom to daub slogans on someone's house though.
 

ninetimesfined

Well-Known Member
Although I guess I might not have posted this if I were David, I'd like to say that he makes a good point about the Diana/Moz connection theory posts. I also felt that those didn't warrant being on the main page, but it's not my site. And when things like this happen, I like to remind myself of all the work (unpaid work) that goes into a site like this. So what if there's a mistake (IMHO) now and again? Moz-solo is a gift to all of us (and Morrissey really). So you know, I think we should get off David's back. Please don't flame me :D

I just think that a line was crossed. First of all there was no allusion to the story being a joke or in any discernible way a 'silly story' - the headline seemed to employ a journalistic tendency to reel one in, grab you. With all the British historic child abuse hysteria surrounding certain high profile politicians, entertainers and other public figures, a lot of people are on tenterhooks.

At the end of the day, some people are stupid. They are narrow minded and don't bother to read the story and too weak willed to form their own judgment. They believe everything they read. Offering them a story like this is dangerous. David makes the argument that people should should be able to form their own judgments and that's all well and good but just because Moz fans are (making huge generalisation here) usually a more intelligent bunch, and opinionated to the point of being able to form a logical one doesn't mean every single one is. And as someone mentioned, the mainstream media (Or other bloggers, smaller news outlets) could read this, make judgments. The more wide the demographic reading said sites, the more chance there is of shit sticking.

And David knows this. Look at the recent hit man/bouncer stuff. It's all over the internet! Morrissey-solo is either the first or second place most Moz stories start.

Who wants to be even linked with abhorrent acts like paedophilia in even the most tenuous way?

My final point: Cliff hasn't been charged with anything. He hasn't even been arrested. It could all be based on a scurrilous rumour.
 
Last edited:
A

Anonymous

Guest
That's a false analogy because in that case someone would have damaged your property, trespassed, invaded your private space, etc - none of which applies in this case of a posting of a link on an internet fansite.

I do happen to believe in freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is taken very seriously in US law. Freedom of speech doesn't mean the freedom to daub slogans on someone's house though.

Okay, say someone put your name on that site, then? And said you were a suspected paedo. You would have no problem with others on the internet disseminating that information. To the point where thousands will have read your name connected with paedophilia. Will they all take the trouble to double-check the 'story'? If it's being disseminated by a site that has some degree of history regarding you and your activities?
Or will they more likely come round to your house and do a bit more damage than just painting words on your front door?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
And now it's been posted on the Morrissey-Solo Facebook page. Pretty soon it will be spread by multitudes of people, and an association between "Morrissey" and "pedophile" will be created. Is this David T's way of getting revenge on Morrissey or something?

That's what I'm worried about. Morrissey should not have to be connected to something so vile. I'm sure random blogs are written on Morrissey, but that doesn't make it news. The title of this news post also implies the possibility of guilt. This is all awful.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
My final point: Cliff hasn't been charged with anything. He hasn't even been arrested.

Precisely! And look at the vast majority of comments online already. "Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!"
People who say "Oh, this just allows people to read the link and use critical thinking to come to their own conclusions" are talking out of their arseholes. This is just gossip and that shit spreads. Fast.
 

2-J

Member
Okay, say someone put your name on that site, then? And said you were a suspected paedo. You would have no problem with others on the internet disseminating that information. To the point where thousands will have read your name connected with paedophilia. Will they all take the trouble to double-check the 'story'? If it's being disseminated by a site that has some degree of history regarding you and your activities?
Or will they more likely come round to your house and do a bit more damage than just painting words on your front door?

Under UK law, it would be libellous to post such things (unless the allegations could be proven as true) but under US law there are much wider free speech protections, I think the onus is on the person objecting to prove the allegations were written maliciously.

But to go back to what you asked, would I be happy if someone was writing such things about me? No. But at the same time I do believe in wide ranging freedom of speech, I prefer the US model to the UK model.
 

CrystalGeezer

My secret's my enzyme.
Who else do you see graphically describing their sexual fantasies in the most juvenile way possible. "dick in your puss"? f***ing gag.

Your fiancé is guilty of painting much worse imagery. Lol.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Under UK law, it would be libellous to post such things (unless the allegations could be proven as true) but under US law there are much wider free speech protections, I think the onus is on the person objecting to prove the allegations were written maliciously.

But to go back to what you asked, would I be happy if someone was writing such things about me? No. But at the same time I do believe in wide ranging freedom of speech, I prefer the US model to the UK model.

That's lovely, dear. God forbid, if it ever happens to you, be sure to explain which model you prefer to the people kicking your front door in as they think you're a "pedo" because they read it online.
 

Trending Threads

Top Bottom