Metal Reviews

I don't agree with the law, either, but it's not for me to decide what laws are applicable in some foriegn country.

If they want change the laws, they should take the necessary steps in doing so. I don't know how things are done in Poland (don't really care, either), but you can't just decide which laws you want to follow and those which you want to break. And if you choose to break them, don't complain if you get caught (especially if you are dumb enough to do t in public) and are faced with the consequences.

at comparing some dumb ass poseur ripping a bible to shock someones grandmother to the American Revolution, though.
At a loss, really.

I'll bet the farm that any lawyer they throw at him, even a "dumb assed" one, is way more educated than "Nergal". A grown man dressing up like a clown, wasting his time with being "anti" Christian, and spewing wannabe-evil pseudo-Satanism to blastbeats in a scary voice (haha) doesn't strike me as mentally formidable. That shit's for confused teenagers struggling to find just where they fit in, seriously.
Besides, I doubt he would try to represent himself, and if he did, he's even dumber than he looks.

As for the Tipper Gore thing; never gave a rat's ass about the whole farce.

I get that you're being all 'Poland for the Polish' about it, but can't you see the overwhelming unfairness that we're moaning about? What exactly is it about offending Catholics that deserves two years in prison? Offending someone should result in being offensive back, not some crazy authoritarian removal from society.

Isn't Nergal dating a pop star? Hardly a waste of time. And Trapt didn't say he'd represent himself.

a) Life isn't fair. He's a dumbass because he knew the law and decided to break it in public. That is the epitome of idiocy. Don't try and make this into some kind of revolutionary thing, because he is just milking the whole "HATE CHRIST BLAARGHGGHHH" nonsense for the effect. He's not "taking a stand".

b) Some guy in (I believe) N. Carolina went to jail for having a noose hanging in his pick-up truck, because it offended a protected minority... is that fair?

c) A pop-star, eh? This knowledge has made my life complete; I feel I can die now with no regrets.

d) Yeah I read that incorrectly. Still, any prosecutor will eat him for breakfast.

If someone is thick enough to spark up a joint in the middle of the town square at lunch-hour, and gets caught, he deserves any consequences that comes his way.

I understand the prisons in Europe are pretty comfortable.
He should just be thankful he isn't facing prison time here in the States. Hard fucking time. He'd probably convert to Christianity with the first 48 hours, haha.

The law as it stands means that if I said 'hey, Catholicism is a BUNCH OF NONSENSE!' I could be prosecuted if two people complain, resulting in a prison sentence of two years. You really think that's just and fair?

Assuming said guy in N. Carolina wasn't using said noose to incite violence, then no, that's not fair. And come on, we'd all be dating pop stars if we could.

I really don't see this as comparable to your scenario, either. Drugs are one thing - of course, smoking an illegal substance in a public place is silly. But ripping up a book, in a concert? Quite different, surely?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Nergal is some kind of artistic or political genius here, I'm just saying a man has a right to say things that might offend others without being imprisoned for it, just as I would were he a fascist nut wanting to deny the Holocaust. If this Polish politician was to make some joke about, say, how Nergal puts his anti-Christianity on hold when it comes to his personal life, then terrific, but prosecuting anyone for what is essentially a thought crime is ridiculous and the complete opposite of what the justice system should stand for.

Oh, nonsense. Just because some American jails are gang-rape knocking-shops doesn't mean that European prisons are automatically easy and fun places.

Eg: http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-deadliest ... -world.php


I'm not saying all of them are like that. Just that this idea that prisons are easy and should be full of pain and torment to teach those evil shits a lesson, it's right-wing nonsense.

haha, you just love blanket statements, don't you?
I could just as easily say that the steady decline of Western Civilisation is due to the left-wing anything goes, if it feels good, do it, nonsense.
If anything, this countries penal system is too soft; I don't mean for drug offenses, which should fall under the addiction / treatment category. But violent crime, robbery, etc. should be dealt with swiftly and harshly.
Don't like it? Cry me a fucking river.


But enough about that.
That's a whole 'nother can of worms.
Let's just leave it closed, shall we?

Look, I think the law is stupid, but even more stupid is breaking it in a public venue in the first place.
If you get your bad self caught in the act, man up and face the consequences.

Incidentally, how do you feel about David Duke being arrested in the Czech Republic for merely stating his beliefs?
Thought crime?

Hehe, yeah the analogy is pretty extreme (mainly being provocative here) but it definitely makes the point that breakin' the law, breakin' the law is not a bad thing if those laws are oppressive ones.

Tbh, I'm at a loss that anyone would argue otherwise. Most people would look at those monks protesting on the streets in Burma and go "yeah, way to go, monks!", rather than "tut tut, stupid monks".

Reminds me of a Mark Steel gag. He was in a taxi and the driver was like:

"Have you seen all that stuff going on in Burma?"
"Yeah."
"Mental, isn't it"
"Yeah."
"Really terrible".
"Yeah, it's awful"
"I mean, you can't have monks just running around on the streets like that, can you?"
"WTF, bro?"

*has deviated from the point slightly*

Like I said:



Free speech is an essential right, whoever you are, as long as you're not actually killing people with it.

Breaking the law to make a change in / challenge government, I can understand that position, but, come on... look at who we are talking about here. It's nothing more than a schlocky attempt at being "evil and shocking".

Heh, you started the blanket-hugging with the whole "Euro prisons are comfortable" thing. We agree more than we disagree; I think drug offences should be treated/reclassified, and I think violent crime should be punished harshly, but I wouldn't go so far as saying that all burglars deserve to be gang-raped in prison.

Agreed.
The way things are and the way things ought to be don't alway coincide, though, do they?

haha, I was rained in at a hotel one night and watched a special on European prisons, preceded by one on US prisons, and the diffences were pretty stark.
I don't know, maybe their are some pretty harsh prisons n Europe, but even Varg had pretty curtains over his kitchen window.

Overall, I think attempts should be made at rehabilitating criminals, rather than just locking them up and throwing away the key, and I think that with young, relatively light offenders (muggings, eg, vandalism, etc) especially, things like having meetings with the victims of said crime and being educated as to what they've done wrong is better than throwing them into prison, where they're more likely to learn harsher crime from harsher criminals. You've seen Scum, right, the old Ray Winstone film? Whereas, serial rapists, pederasts, murderers and so on need to be removed from society, without a doubt.

As for Varg, he's done his time and seems fairly rehabilitated, Belus is much better than I first thought, life goes on.

I dunno, from what I understand of Poland, like Goat said earlier, tearing up a bible probably is a lot more shocking and confrontational than it would be in some other countries.

Anyway, the point still remains that someone facing imprisonment for essentially being a poser IS an example of government being oppressive, which IMO should be challenged.

As for David Duke, yeah, arresting him probably is an example of punishing someone for "thought crime". So is Michael Savage being banned from entering the UK, albeit it kind of a funny one. Sinister government intrusion into free speech at its most comical, if you will!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009 ... cqui-smith

This all got me wondering. So like, should gay people just stick to holding hands (sometimes not even that) just because their laws prohibit them form kissing their partner in public or something? How far would you be willing to push the "obey the law, sucka"-thing?

(Observe the smiley, I'm asking gently, not trying to be annoying)

Homosexuality is not illegal here, as far as I know. As for them holding hands and kissing in public, I could live without it.

It should be the same as for hetero couples. So, holding hands fine, kissing ok, but rude in a social situation, anything beyond should not be done in public.

These are more social rules, though. Trying to legislate to stop people kissing is like a Joni Mitchell song gone very badly wrong.