Granted his early appearances with Take That were aimed squarely at the pink pound, but that is a historic video persona. Robbie Williams himself is virtually a by-word for, how should I put it… cocky, pop-star heterosexuality. So much so, it seems pretty darn odd that even gossipy, downmarket, national newspapers should choose to print flimsy stories attributing to him a history of casual gay sex. The sequel, however is odder.
British libel law being what it is, the already wealthy Mr Williams has just received a large financial settlement and an apology. Good for him! Silly newspapers who should know better made untrue statements, and he took full advantage of the law to get compensation.
But there is something weird going on, nonetheless. Leave aside the peculiar way defamation puts the burden of proof on the defence. Here we have an example of the inflexibility of the common law. Why in early 21st century Britain it prima facie defamatory to impute homosexuality to a man (or, for that matter, un-chastity of any kind to a woman)?
This same week the British state directly affirmed (or seized control over, depending on your point of view) same-sex partnerships for the first time. And it is not just official recognition. Openly gay individuals are accepted and successful public figures. The most popular BBC drama series last year was the revival of Dr Who, mainstream family programming with a recurring supporting character who is a polymorphously perverse time-travelling conman, now liberated into his own series. The most imitated comedy turn in the nation’s playgrounds is Little Britain‘s Daffydd*, soi-disant “only gay in the village”, the joke of whom is his determination to be oppressed despite all the evidence around him that plenty of neighbours are un-dramatic queens, and nobody gives a toss anyway.
Likewise, who would give a toss if Robbie Williams had had homosexual dalliances? It wouldn’t make him a less entertaining performer or his music less catchy. It would not make him a less engaging personality. Arguably more complexity is more interesting in a public figure. So it is hard to see how the libellous story, however wrong or personally hurtful, could either lower him in the estimation of his peers or significantly damage his commercial prospects, which is the theoretical justification for libel damages.
On the other hand, I can be disparaging about the content of his musical work, or his stage act, and if I am widely published, then I might do real injury to his sale prospects, as well as emotional hurt to the creative person and performer. That’s not actionable, though. I am not saying it should be, but the comparison illuminates how archaic is libel.
[* I’m grateful for a commentator’s correction.]
I seem to recall that Liberace won a suit against a journalist who accused him of being homosexual, didn’t he? So it follows he couldn’t possibly have been.
That aside, Mr Herbert is, of course, correct. British libel laws are a yoke under which anyone writing anything in this country labours. And that includes those contributing to blogs – some of whom stray pretty close to the wind at times – at least, in my distinctly unlearned opinion they do.
I would hazard a guess that it would be construed as damaging to EMI’s interests if their target purchase group for Robbie Williams’ records perceived him as being gay. Despite previous claims and Williams’ own ‘confession’ to his being gay I agree that there is no clear reason why EMI should have a problem with this. After all Will Young apparently isn’t homosexual yet BMG marketed him as such in order to capture more of the young and gay record buying market.
Indeed, but the Liberace case was in the 50s, when homosexual behaviour was both criminal and widely met with public and official hostility. It ain’t now.
Even if there’s still some private unease, public attitudes have changed utterly in 20 years. (My analysis is people felt forced to talk about it by the AIDS panic, and having talked about it, realised in retrospect the sky hadn’t fallen in and it wasn’t actually a big deal.)
My point is also a more general one that common law, admirable though it is in stretching to deal with new problems, doesn’t contract its ambit as readily as it expands it.
guy herbert writes:
“Indeed, but the Liberace case was in the 50s, when homosexual behaviour was both criminal and widely met with public and official hostility. It ain’t now.”
Oh dear. I seem to have commited subtlety.
Here’s a free idea for an academic law paper (mind you cite me, boys and girls):
The purported justification of libel in contemporary theory is economic damage, but its foundations lie in conceptions of insult to honour and its satisfaction. Libel is a duel-substitute.
Anyone writing anything indeed, GC. Which is why in discussing a current libel case one should be especially careful.
I’d rather have dueling than libel laws, but that’s just me.
The thought of pistols at twenty paces with myself and, say, Al Gore as protagonists fills me with passionate longing.
In these days of pandering to the Quaradawi “solution” for homosexuality, I am not so sure that the only potential damage would be economic. Maybe we need to sort out, and re-emphasise our benchmark values. If the liberty of the individual was truly paramount in our society, I would agree that little economic damage would be inflicted by the assignation of homosexual traits to anyone. But at present, that is a pipe dream.
But then how do we assess the non-financial damage to a human life? Surely to place someone’s family and home life in jeopardy is just as bad. After all, the legal precepts of human rights legislation hardly extend into the realm of intimate personal relationships. If the press furore gets sufficiently filthy, (long lenses through the lavvy window) the missus gets to divorce you regardless of the truth of the accusations. Life can become untenable. And whatever is published in the “Daily Knickers and Knockers” on Monday, is liable to turn up in the school playground on Tuesday.
Celebrities can be rendered radioactive in the twinkling of an eye, and it doesn’t just mean record sales.
Well what we really need to worry about, is what the dirty buggers are planning to do next. Let’s face it, naked celebs are going to become passee. After all, once seen, eternally forgotten. The pervies will need a new target, a new “zeitgeist”, maybe it will be us proles….
Just a thought
Dafydd is of course the only gay in the village.
A few years ago Jason Donovan also sued over an allegation that he was gay. At that time too, some people questioned why exactly this should be actionable at law, given that homosexuality is now a legal lifestyle choice. Furthermore, given that some of the few people who bought his records were gays, Jason rather shot himself in the foot (though not, sadly the larynx), and although he won the case, his career has not exactly been flourishing of late. I think his record company arranged for him to do a sort of cringeful interview in an attempt to explain to his fans that although he found the allegation of homosexuality offensive enough to go to law, he himself had nothing against gays, some of my best friends, please keep on buying my records blah blah blah. Didn’t work.
Moral: if your career depends on the pink pound, don’t sue if someone calls you gay. A bit of creative ambiguity can be money in the bank.
Leave aside the peculiar way defamation puts the burden of proof on the defence.
This is one of the biggest differences in jurisprudence between the UK and US. In the US burden of proof is on the plaintiff because there’s a legal presumption that the defendant was exercising their First Amendment rights.
It turns out to be a lot more difficult to prevail in a libel suit in the US. For one thing, under US law the truth can never be libelous, which is not the case in the UK. (It’s also legally impossible to libel the dead in the US.)
A person’s reputation is what other people think of them Libel laws are based on the presumption that we have a right to control what other people think of us. We don’t.
Steven Den Beste writes:
“It’s also legally impossible to libel the dead in the US.”
Also true in the UK, unless I’m mistaken.
Much as you’d like to think, in a freely-embracing and tolerant world, that RW shouldn’t care if someone thinks he’s gay or not, it’s still not going to happen.
It’s easy to say that direct comments about his performances have an economic effect on his brand/ worth, however the more tenuous elements have as much an effect as well.
The thing is, people do care whether or not he’s gay. If he suddenly only desires to have his merry way with men (and a small segment of them, at that), then there will be a sizeable number of women who no longer hold an interest in him and the same amongst males, who might see him as ‘one of the lads who you’d quite like to have as a mate’ will no longer think of him in such a way. Suddenly, those profits aren’t quite what they used to be…
Trivial stuff, some of you might think, but true enough to keep record companies on their toes and quite guarded when it comes down to it. In public and across a more liberal section of society, those views aren’t commonly held, but privately and across some of the more myopic elements, they are 😉
Somebody mentioned something about Will Young not being gay, despite being marketed as such by EMI. If it is the case that Will is not gay, why on Earth hold the rumours back until after he’d won Pop Idol? Unfortunately, I don’t know the ins and outs of that one to comment further.
I’ll leave this question for some of you to think about:
Can you name a single major, male Hollywood superstar that is openly gay?
James – if you are trying to say that Robbie Williams might suffer some damage to his career were he thought to be homosexual, may I just say two names to you? Freddie Mercury and George Michael.
I am not aware that either of their careers suffered from public knowledge of their sexual proclivities.
RW is an icon of popular culture- to simplify it further, he epitomises the cult of celebrity.
Whilst I wouldn’t deny that Freddie Mercury or George Michael were/ are (?) celebrities, they are in a *very* different league.
What might apply to one thing doesn’t necessarily apply to the other.
Freddie Mercury was hardly every girl’s pinup, was he? More than anything, he was respected for his music, not his image. Robbie Williams is the opposite; whilst his music is fairly middle of the road and easily accepted by most, it’s not up there with the biggest names in the history of popular music. He’s famous and popular for his image.
George Michael did suffer a drop in popularity for a couple of years after he ‘came out’. He was fortunate enough to have started taking his musical style down a more mature path at that point, though.
RW doesn’t have that option- he trades on his image. His management are doubtfully willing to risk everything on something like his sexuality.
I’m not disagreeing that prejudices shouldn’t necessarily come into play; I’m just saying how it is.
One thing I have noticed though, is that many people here seem to be assuming he is gay already. Surely he has the right to protect his reputation fairly?
James writes:
“I’m not disagreeing that prejudices shouldn’t necessarily come into play; I’m just saying how it is.”
Forgive me if I don’t pursue the argument. Of the three of them I favour Freddie Mercury. At least he had he good grace to die.
The other two continue to flaunt their sparse talents to such a degree that I sometimes find myself wishing they would follow his example.
To put it another way, I simply can’t be bothered to argue about morons.
Oh, and in case guy herbert is checking, I believe that is covered under ‘common abuse’.
John K,
Thank you. You can see I don’t spend much of my time in playgrounds.
Steven Den Beste,
Truth is a defence in the UK, too. But literal truth won’t suffice if there is an innuendo. You have to prove the truth of every defamatory meaning the words could bear, which, given that such defamatory meanings may arise from contingent facts unknown to you at the time of writing, may well be impossible.
James,
The Hollywood point is interesting. I’m sure that everything in Hollywood is motivated by marketing, and that the stars and studios do think, probably correctly, that an actor’s sexuality can damage his or her ratings. Hollywood’s markets are the US and the world, of course. The movie must play in Peoria and Penang, too, which explains the dominance of thin characters and spectacular explosions as well as social conservatism.
The standard for British courts, though, is generally supposed to be whether someone is lowered in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. If the society concerned is modern Britain then the establishment view is homosexuality is no big deal.
So if an allegation of homosexuality is presumed defamatory without the need to show that the allegation is damaging which is the case in Britain, then the law is incoherent.
GCooper writes of Freddie Mercury: “At least he had the good grace to die”.
What a thoroughly nasty remark, GCooper. What exactly has the late Queen frontman done to you?
Freddie dying of Aids was probably a bad career move.
Freddie dying of Aids was probably a bad career move.
Not necessarily.
The point at issue here is why in the UK in 2005, not 1955, you can libel someone for implying they are gay. Gays can now register their partnerships, they can adopt children, join the armed forces, senior cabinet ministers are openly gay. If someone wrote that Robbie Williams was gay, he should just have said “no I’m not” (assuming he isn’t) and that should be the end of the matter. Unless the courts don’t really belive all the stuff about gays being fine and equal. Deep waters here.
Will Young not gay? Wasn’t it Vicki Woods, who actually knows the family, who wrote in the Telegraph that he was?
Williams’s libel trial was only superficially about sexuality, the actual point of dispute was the imputation that Williams had deceived people in his autobiography. Williams was clear on this in a radio interview last night. He is far too clever to repeat the same silly, career-ending mistake as Jason Donovan.
Contra James, Williams actually goes out of his way to be teasingly ambiguous about his sexuality.
Nevertheless, Richard Garner is quite correct. All libel laws are a restriction of free expression, unlibertarian and ought to be abolished. Rothbard has an excellent chapter on this in his Ethics of Liberty available to view free, online from the Mises Institute website.
Johnathan Pearce writes:
“What a thoroughly nasty remark, GCooper. What exactly has the late Queen frontman done to you?”
He was, by every account I have heard, a particularly loathsome human being. Does one require a better reason?
I’m sorry if you were a fan and feel offended.
GCooper, I am not aware that he was particularly loathesome or committed any crimes. If you have proof of his supposed loathesomeness, provide it.
I am not a fan but saying what you said about someone like that was unpleasant.
Laws on defamation? Seem fairly sound to me. If that’s “unlibertarian”, then bite me…
Defamation laws exist because it’s considered unacceptable to damage someone’s life in such a manner. Perhaps people can think what they like about us, but that’s different from uttering a falsehood that could have detrimental effects to one’s life. That’s hardly decent or moral, IMO. And before anyone states that morality is subjective (which in itself hasn’t been proven), if I lied to you about anything, you’d hardly consider that a moral act. And yes, lying doesn’t have to initiate force against anyone’s person or property.
So, someome’s friendships, family life and even job should be affected, because someone wants the right to speak freely? Are all fellow libertarians autists with no sense of empathy?
I can understand if someone’s business involves making teenage girls want them as a boyfriend that revelations of same sex activity could be bad for the bottom (ahem) line.
But, I doubt if Williams appeals to the teenage girl set (I’d think he’s too threatening in lots of ways) and his own frequent joking allusions to gay men including mock “confessions” of being gay himself would disqualify him from being able to get any money from something like this.
It could just be of course that UK libel laws really are nuts.
Chris A
Laws on defamation? Seem fairly sound to me.
You are in grave ideological and moral error. Read Rothbard (Ethics of Liberty) and Walter Block (Defending the Undefendable) on libel laws.
Morality is quite objective and it objectively stipulates that preventing people expressing themselves freely, as libel laws do, is utterly immoral. Lying per se is neither moral nor immoral.
Your opinions on this matter are merely emotive and inchoate – read the extensive libertarian literature (Rothbard and Block are just a start) on this subject to clear your mind and set you right.
“Read Rothbard (Ethics of Liberty) and Walter Block (Defending the Undefendable) on libel laws.”
So Rothbard is now the authority on law? I guess all those law classes at college meant nothing.
“Morality is quite objective”
According to whom exactly?
”
and it objectively stipulates that preventing people expressing themselves freely, as libel laws do, is utterly immoral.”
Even though most people in the world who advocate objective morals wouldn’t cite this? Hmm..whatever…
“Lying per se is neither moral nor immoral”
Uh-huh? Most societies in the world cite lying as wrong. And before you whine on about being bound by a society, that’s being human, deal with it.
“Your opinions on this matter are merely emotive and inchoate – read the extensive libertarian literature (Rothbard and Block are just a start) on this subject to clear your mind and set you right.”
Clear my mind? Shock horror! A libertarian can’t accept people think differently!!
The fact is defamation can damage someone’s life. And not just in an “economic” sense.
So Rothbard is now the authority on law?
No, merely a good recommendation – why don’t you read him and let us know where you think he goes wrong?
I guess all those law classes at college meant nothing.
Did they cover philosophical jurisprudence as well as positive law?
“Morality is quite objective” According to whom exactly?
A conjectural assertion which happens to be true. Feel free to offer relevant criticism if you think you have any.
Even though most people in the world who advocate objective morals wouldn’t cite this?
Democratic fallacy. What has a mere preponderence of opinion to do with moral or any other kind of truth?
Most societies in the world cite lying as wrong
Democratic fallacy again. Do you think it wrong to lie to a Nazi asking which way the Jews were running?
before you whine on about being bound by a society
I’m not given to whining and certainly not about being bound by society.
A libertarian can’t accept people think differently
I accept it quite readily; in your case I am charitably trying to lead you out of your error. It would be negligent of me to let you persist in your confusion when I am in a position to so easily offer a corrective.
The fact is defamation can damage someone’s life. And not just in an “economic” sense.
So can telling the truth, what of it? Libertarianism is not about not ‘damaging lives’. There are manifold ways that ‘damaging lives’ is perfectly consistent with libertarianism and morality.
Instead of being insolent and resentful when you are corrected by your intellectual superiors you should welcome the opportunity to exchange your errors for truth.
Read the literature I have cited and let us have your critique if you still feel commited to your position.
Guy Herbert writes: Leave aside the peculiar way defamation puts the burden of proof on the defence. Actually, it’s the plaintiff that must prove a statement is defamatory. (And in most cases, though not in the case of sexual allegations, they must prove the statement is defamatory and actually damaging.) There can be no compensation unless this is proved. That a statement is in fact true is one possible defence: only then is the burden of proof (that the statement is true) on the defence, for the obvious reason that the plaintiff cannot (positively) prove that a statement is not true.
The main point is to wonder why in the 21st Century publishing a statement that someone is gay is defamatory. Well, that’s what the jury is there for. Maybe the day will come when juries don’t think it’s defamatory, but I for one am glad it’s not up to politicians or judges to decide what people are allowed to think.
Guy Herbert ends with: I can be disparaging about the content of his musical work […] That’s not actionable. Well it depends on what you say! If you say he sings out of tune, that is actionable. Equally if you were to say his act was “camp” that would not be actionable. You are not distinguishing between assertions of fact (actionable if defamatory) and expressions of opinion (generally not actionable unless malicious).
Johnathan Pearce writes:
“GCooper, I am not aware that he was particularly loathesome or committed any crimes.”
Clearly. Though you are inventing an accusation of criminality. Perhaps you would like to show where I made it?
“If you have proof of his supposed loathesomeness, provide it.”
Strangely, not having anticipated your snippy challenge at some future date, I haven’t kept the back issues of the magazine articles I have read in which his (frankly disgusting) behaviour was detailed. I’m sure you could find illumination on the Web, if you really want your stomach turning.
“I am not a fan but saying what you said about someone like that was unpleasant”
Someone like what? An egomaniac rock singer? Or are you one of those who believes death by AIDS is a badge of martyrdom?
I read lots of things, here and elsewhere, that are unpleasant. Rough old life, isn’t it?
Incidentally, what I said about (living) George Michael and Robbie Williams was far more unpleasant. And yet you single out the deceased Mercury. Why?
Bill,
While certainly it’s true that a case must be made, the problem is that showing something is defamatory is pretty easy. You don’t have to have evidence of actual damage; hypothetical damage will do, so “damaging” in has a rather special meaning.
You aren’t compensated for actual damage: the quantum is in the hands of the jury, which has no means to assess what it is proper to give.
This makes defending phenomenally risky, and all the available defences except justification (which often just won’t work) are highly technical–and all of them can make things worse. So things are in practice much harder for the defence–which will in a contested case bear a burden of proof, either of the special defence, or that what was complained of does not constitute defamation–that awkward matter of proving a negative.
GCooper, what was so particularly loathesome about him that you felt that he had the “good grace” to die?
Put up or shut up.
Oh, and as far as I can see, the sin for which FM “had the good grace to die” as far as GCooper is concerned is for being an “egomaniac rock singer”. Well, pretty much most such front-men of rock bands tend to be a bit egoistical but does that mean they should drop dead? Sheesh.
Guy,
Your comments are sensible but you overlook the fact that a film/pop star is a carefully-branded product in which sex (including sexual identity) is part of the marketing mix. Robbie Williams’ appeal to his young girl fans is – apart from the content of his music – intrinsically related to the creation and promotion of a ‘heterosexual lad’ fantasy. He is also promoted as a ‘lad’ to his young male fans. There is little doubt that, given this type of fan base, being openly homosexual would reduce his appeal and his bankability in his core markets. There is also a small part of the population (mainly male) that is not at all relaxed about homosexuality but deeply antipathetic towards it and homosexuals themselves. Williams would lose this part of his fan base should be be characterised as a homosexual. Being gay would seriously damage his chances of success in the US market too.
Madonna is a good example of someone who has, on the contrary, purposely created a fluid, flexible series of personas that have deliberately flouted conventions on sexual behaviour and “how women should behave”. She has always been a good business operator, with more control over her branding and has always – as a great marketeer – been able to anticipate and exloit trends in a way that someone like Robbie Williams could not possibly emulate.
The creation and promotion of stars is a hard-nosed, deeply cynical business about the creation and feeding fantasies.
I am not, therefore, surprised by any of Robbie Williams’ behaviour as it has little to do with whether he is genuinely heterosexual or homosexual but all to do with pop world business strategies.
Johnathan Pearce writes:
“Put up or shut up”
I have absolutely no intention of shutting up, Mr Pearce.
This isn’t the first time the scratched surface of your libertarinism has revealed a nasty little streak of authortarianism, as I seem to recall both Verity and I have noted before.
As I said pereviously, if you can be bothered to read-up about the man’s lifestyle, you’ll find plenty about him that was pretty unsavoury, to say the least.
Or perhaps not. It all depends on your tates, I suppose.
DavidBruno writes:
“There is little doubt that, given this type of fan base, being openly homosexual would reduce his appeal and his bankability in his core markets.”
A consideration which, if it were true, Williams might have borne in mind when he was cultivating ambiguity.
It is all a good deal more complicated than it appears on the surface. Contrary to the instincts of heterosexual men, it isn’t axiomatic that homosexuality damages a pop star’s appeal to teenage girls. Look at David Bowie, who career was done no harm at all by his (possibly fabricated, who knows?) claims.
Either way, in the very week that the misnomer ‘gay wedding’ has been splashed across every newspaper and TV channel in an orgy of sycophantic approval, it is still hard to see what harm could have been done by the mere accusation of homosexuality.
On the other hand, reading an account of the trial in yesterday’s Telegraph, it may be that it was the unpleasantness of the alleged encounters that was at issue. In which case, assuming that is true, he had a pretty good argument.
GCooper:
it may be that it was the unpleasantness of the alleged encounters that was at issue.
It was the imputation of dishonesty that was at issue.
In which case, assuming that is true, he had a pretty good argument.
An argument in law perhaps but not one with which libertarians should have any sympathy.
if you can be bothered to read-up about the man’s lifestyle, you’ll find plenty about him that was pretty unsavoury, to say the least.
Stop being so coy.
GCooper, I have no intention of shutting you up – as if – but I have an instant dislike of people who come out with comments such as “at least he had the grace to die”. How hard is it for you to see how vile such a remark is? Are you completely tone-deaf? You haven’t, I noticed, answered my question as to why a man’s flamboyance or illness somehow makes his death an event to be welcomed.
Johnathan Pearce writes:
” How hard is it for you to see how vile such a remark is? ”
What on earth makes you think I wasn’t fully aware of what I wrote? It was intended to be unpleasant. I disliked the man and I see no reason I should have to justify that dislike to you, or anyone else.
“You haven’t, I noticed, answered my question as to why a man’s flamboyance or illness somehow makes his death an event to be welcomed.”
I wish you could overcome this mendacity. That was your third fabrication on this issue. The first was that I accused him of being criminal. I did not (although, of course, with his prodigious consumption of cocaine, he clearly was – but that doesn’t bother me). The second accusation is that I welcomed his death because of his flamboyance. I did not. The third, that I welcomed it because of his illness. Again, I most certainly did not.
I said I (in effect) that I welcomed his death because he was a loathsome human being. I have invited you to go and read something about his behaviour, which you seem unable or unwilling to do. Instead, you come back with inventions and imputations you are unable to justify, and accuse me of refusing to address them.
Your outrage at offensiveness toward a deceased pop star seems curious given the sentiments quite regularly expressed here, Perry de Havilland’s recent imprecation to a litigant who was suing because she wished she hadn’t been born (or something like that, I forget the precise detail) was a masterpiece.
Still, she wasn’t a Dianaified rock singer, was she?
GCooper writes:
I welcomed his death because he was a loathsome human being. I have invited you to go and read something about his behaviour, which you seem unable or unwilling to do.
One could read every single biographical detail of Mercury’s life and still one would not know what it is that you find so loathsome. Only you can tell us that.
When Perry denounces someone he is quite clear about his reasons but you seem to be as shy as a debutante at her first ball of the season.
Stop fluttering your eyelashes behind your fan and give us a flash of your garter you impish coquette!
GCooper writes:
“It is all a good deal more complicated than it appears on the surface”
That might be true. Might Robbie Williams actually be confused about how to deal with his sexuality – privately and publicly, in and out of his stage persona(e)? Might this explain some inconsistency. The boy is no Madonna – someone who, by contrast, has successfully stage-managed and marketed all the sexual twists and turns of her career without losing fans. Maybe it’s “easier for a girl”(not in Dusty’s era, but now)?…
BTW, David Bowie’s image was a carefully contrived performance masterminded by his wife (who has publicly spoken about how this was done in order to generate extra publicity and enhance Bowie’s glam-rock, androgynous image) in order to further his pop career.
That’s my twopence worth on this – the fact is that, for non rich rock stars, being gay in Britain has become immeasurably easier in recent years and my patience – and capacity – for the trivia of rock star’s lives – and largely self-inflicted ‘problems – is very limited. Am I alone?;-)
GCooper, go and take up Paul Coulam’s challenge and state what, exactly, was so loathesome about F.Mercury to make you welcome his death. I cannot be bothered to trawl around looking for such stuff. You raised the issue, so follow it through and show some backbone.
Bah.
I googled for a few minutes and didn’t find anything very scandalous. I’ll take sexual indiscretion and substance abuse as a given, what rock stars aren’t guilty of that?
I suspect GCooper is shooting blanks. He made an ill-advised comment and rather than admit that he’s playing this ridiculous “find out for yourself game” (in my experience just about never used when the person in question has a good argument).
Michael Farris writes:
“I suspect GCooper is shooting blanks. He made an ill-advised comment and rather than admit that he’s playing this ridiculous “find out for yourself game” (in my experience just about never used when the person in question has a good argument).”
I had determined not to pursue this, but your patronising attitude at least deserves a response – which is more than can be said for the increasingly feeble ones from Johnathan Pearce, whose tack has veered so far that he is now sheltering behind someone else.
My remark about Freddie Mercury was anything but “ill-advised”. It was what I thought when he died, was what I had thought back in the 1970s and is what I think now.
I reserve the right to think it and say it about anyone I please and I’m damned if I am going to be constrained by the worship of a media-deified pop star whose debauched lifestyle got him killed.
Now if you, Johnathan Pearce and whoever else happen not to think Freddie Mercury’s lifestyle was debauched, that’s fine. You may (quite rightly) consider that it was wholly his own affair. Which is true. But I’m damned if I can see it as anything to admire – not least when it proved to have been suicidal. You may not define that as loathsome behaviour. I do. And yes, I feel the same way about a host of self-destroying celebrities.
In passing, it’s hard not to note the queasy political correctness that infects even supposedly rational spaces such as this. In response to another post, Elvis Presley, whose lifestyle also killed him, is mocked – which is, also, fine by me. But Freddie Mercury, because he died of a sexually transmitted disease, suffering from which has been elevated to the condition of martyrdom among Guardianistas and Hello readers alike, is beyond sainthood.
Elvis Presley died of hamburgers – ho ho ho! Freddie Mercury – described after an orgy as reclining in a bath that was more semen than bubble-bath – oh no, that was a valid lifestyle .
What hypocritical cant!
And that’s my last comment on this subject.
Oh, thank you, G. Cooper. There’s an image that will stick with me for life.
Tolerance, in the modern sense, is less about the poor souls that are tolerated than it is about the worthy and enlightened beings that do the tolerating. Tolerance is a fashion accessory and, as such, has to be adjusted constantly to seasonal changes.
Does Elvis go with these shoes? Goodness me, no. Everyone’s wearing Johnny Cash these days. The manic pill-popping years, of course, not the tacky Jesus-loving 1970s model.
GCooper, thank you for responding, finally. You more or less proved my point. Behind the bluster, you present one distasteful detail (which I’m sure that can easily be matched by any number of other 70’s rock stars starting with the story of the led zeppelin groupie and the live fish …).
People were sad when Mercury died because he was an extremely talented musician whose music brought a lot of pleasure to millions of people (it generally left me cold, but that’s not so relevant). Also, the disease that killed him was of the long, drawn out and painful variety, which most people who aren’t you, don’t wish on anybody, even if it was the direct result of their own life choices.
Of course you’re entitled to take pleasure in his demise, people were just curious …… why? Thank you for clearing it up.
GCooper, why don’t have the balls to admit that you disapprove of gay people’s behaviour?That would at least be honest and – you may be surprised to learn – I would sympathise with some of what you might say. But you take the evasive approach of hinting that a person did terrible things and then, when I and other called you out for it, started yelling that I was trying to shut you up. That’s not very adult or very honourable.
“..which is more than can be said for the increasingly feeble ones from Johnathan Pearce, whose tack has veered so far that he is now sheltering behind someone else.”
Well, he can shelter behind another person then.
GCooper – your remarks are blatantly homophobic. You have the right to gay-bashing views as it is a free country. Just don’t expect me to respect them.
Dear me. So the three of you equate wildly promiscuous behavior with gay behavior? Is homosexuality such a savage, untameable force that it is unfair and wrong to expect of it any restraints at all, public or private?
Well, well. You have a lower opinion of gayness than G. Cooper apparently does. He is demanding a certain standard of behavior. You seem to regard gays as a sort of animal: feral, beautiful, in need of protection, but hardly responsible for anything they do. I can think of a few restrained individuals who would feel distinctly bashed by this view.
But never mind, gents. It’s all about you, really, and the way tolerance brings out the blue in your eyes…
I don’t think anyone will be surprised with the news that Freddie Mercury was a poofter, nor that he was partial to more coke than was good for him. However, I had always read that as a person he was quite pleasant. I don’t particularly hold it against a chap that he was gay and used drugs, and personally would not call anyone “loathesome” just on those grounds.
S. Weasel, in case I’m included in “the three of you” I certainly don’t equate homosexuality with promiscuity. In case you’re too young to remember, many male rock stars from the 70’s engaged in promiscuous behavior.
The principle difference between them and Mercury was Mercury’s orientation.
If anything I associate promiscuous desires with male sexuality, it’s just the great majority never have the chance to live the slut lifestyle. Rock stars straight or gay did and many tried to make the most of the opportunity.
GCooper seems (according to the single, certainly false, detail that he provides) that he particularly objects to the combination of promiscuity and homosexuality. That’s certainly his right. Just as it’s my right to think his thinking is more than a little muddled.
I can remember further back even than that, Michael. And I would have exactly the same reaction were I told Jean Harlow once soaked in a tub more semen than bubblebath: ewww. That you assume G. Cooper meant anything else tells me more about your hangups than his.
I don’t hold that some skanks are sacred. Perhaps I’m showing my age, at that.
“And I would have exactly the same reaction were I told Jean Harlow once soaked in a tub more semen than bubblebath: ewww”
Well, my first reaction is yech! (to the general idea, which is pretty disgusing) my second reaction is that it couldn’t be true and is either wild hyperbole or simply false. Some folks though are apparently more gullible than others.
And some more literal.