This week, Marilyn Manson was confirmed to support Slipknot in front of 90,000 people at Wembley Stadium next July. He was booked despite the wave of sexual misconduct allegations levelled against him, plus a lawsuit from his former assistant alleging physical, emotional and psychological abuse that’s set to go to trial in November 2027. (The singer denies any wrongdoing, and in 2025 a four-year investigation into his alleged crimes was dropped with no charges filed.) If metal is supposed to uplift the downtrodden, then putting a man accused of wrongdoing by more than a dozen women on one of Europe’s biggest stages feels like the antithesis of everything the genre stands for.
Manson, whose real name is Brian Hugh Warner, retreated from the public eye after the start of the allegations against him in 2021, but he returned in 2024 with a new record deal and a string of high-profile tour dates. He’s far from the only allegedly problematic figure to have recently made a successful musical comeback. Chris Brown, who in 2009 pleaded guilty to felony assault of his ex-girlfriend Rihanna, and Ye (formerly Kanye West), who made a string of antisemitic statements in 2022, are playing massive venues. Earlier this month, the Guardian published an op-ed about Queen of the Stone Age frontman Josh Homme’s cosy image rehabilitation after he kicked a female photographer and his ex-wife accused him of domestic abuse.
Metal, with its long-established identity as a dangerous and anti-mainstream force, appears to be particularly lenient with this kind of figure. The news of Manson touring with Slipknot came three months after Pantera supported Metallica on their second night at the 62,500-capacity London Stadium. In 2016, Pantera singer Phil Anselmo faced widespread backlash for raising his hand and screaming “white power!” onstage at a charity concert. He eventually apologised, but in 2017 gave an interview where he called some of his detractors “phonies”. None of it stopped his band from reuniting to much celebration in 2022. In November, Nuclear Blast Records, the same label to which Manson signed in 2024, will release a new album by Anselmo’s other group, Down.
In February, As I Lay Dying are poised to release a new album. The band split in 2014 after its sole constant member, singer Tim Lambesis, was sentenced to six years in prison for soliciting the murder of his ex-wife. Then, in 2024, everyone bar Lambesis quit the band, and some disturbing video surfaced online where he’s seen flipping a table that another ex-wife was sitting at. (The former couple have each accused the other of abuse.) As I Lay Dying’s latest single, aptly entitled Polarized, has amassed 560,000 YouTube views in two weeks regardless.
There were never any accusations of Paul Reubens being inappropriate with a child. You're engaging in baseless homophobic attacks by asserting that Michael Jackson and Paul Reubens are in any way similar in their crimes.
I never claimed there were any accusations of Paul Reubens abusing children. I said the exact opposite.
Additionally my point in bringing up Michael Jackson (and only when you did) was to point out that the court of public opinion took over and the actual court system didn't even press charges against him. These two people don't have a whole lot in common except that the court of public opinion played judge, jury, and executioner without the actual court system ever proving their crimes.
Being gay doesn't mean you are a good person. It doesn't somehow absolve you of any wrong doing ever.
Paul Reubens has addressed this in his own words and that is what I am basing my thoughts on. Not what the court says he did, but what he said he did. If you skipped over the part where I blatantly stated that I don't believe he was a a pedophile that's on you.
You brought up Michael Jackson first and put P Diddy and Paul Reubens in the same category.
Never claimed that. Paul was targeted because he was gay. It's well documented.
It's not enough to say he wasn't a pedophile. He was unfairly targeted and prosecuted for being in a gay erotic theater minding his own business.
You are continuing to smear his name when you put him with the likes of P Diddy and Michael Jackson. You fell for a disinformation campaign designed to take down a gay man. Own it.
Also it's considered rude to edit your comment after someone replies to you.
I didn't fall for anything. If anything, like you I originally believe exactly what you are saying and was presented with more information that changed my mind. I am not okay with people being in possession of materials that depict child sexual acts (yeah, I do not care if they 6 or 16, that's still not okay).
I don't care if you think it's rude. You started an argument here over something that you won't even admit was stated by the person who was accused and won't even touch that statement except to claim it was in some way coerced without proof and while not acknowledging that he doesn't recant that statement and in fact repeats it later on.
You don't even have to agree with me. You're clearly very angry about this and that's a you problem. I didn't just make this decision to change my mind blindly. I went through a lot of trouble to read a lot about the subject in order to make up my mind.
I have never refuted that he pled guilty. I do refute that he's guilty in actuality though. Especially considering they didn't actually find anything in his collection.
Also, to be really clear, Paul only pled guilty to a misdemeanor obscenity charge, not a charge for possession of CSAM.
So. What he plead guilty to and what he stated both in court and later in interview are not necessarily about what he plead guilty to.
You’re gonna need to bring sources for me to believe you here.
That you didn’t realize what his actual charges that he pled guilty for is telling that you’re talking out of your ass here and pretending like you’re well-read on the topic.
I'm not going to rewatch a whole documentary to give you what you want. I did my research and made up my mind. What you believe or don't believe is none of my business. You are the one who is continuing this argument here.
“That mischaracterizes the art collection seized,” Reubens’ lawyer, Blair Berk said Friday. “If that means a black-and-white tintype from 1901 with a young man of indeterminate, 17- to 19-year-old age, laying on the beach after having gone skinny-dipping ... then they got it.”
“It was clear from the start that we, along with the many distinguished art experts supporting Paul’s art photography collection, vehemently disagreed with the city prosecutor’s view of what constitutes art,” Berk said.
In a statement, Reubens said he was glad that the child pornography charge had been dismissed without “a costly circus-like trial.”
I can bring sources.
And no matter what sources I bring you will not change your mind. That makes two of us. Have a nice day.
Hahaha that’s one way to bow out. Ciao!
I don't understand what the personal attacks were about, but bye.
When you defend the prosecution of a gay man based solely on the fact that he’s gay, oh AND compare him to prolific and horrific rapists, people are going to form opinions about you.
I certainly have an opinion about you now.
Why is it incredibly funny for me to bring up Michael Jackson then?
I will die on this hill so fucking hard about PeeWee Herman.
Then go die on that hill. I'm not stopping you.
Oh I'm dying on it right now, right here.
You are disparaging an innocent man who was targeted by the state for his sexual orientation.
I am judging a man based on what he has admitted. I am acknowledging that the states hands aren't clean in this and that I absolutely believe that he was targeted but that doesn't change the facts.
Again, it was the comparing him to P Diddy and Michael Jackson that was your biggest misstep here and the one I took most issue with here. And you just keep doubling down.
He admitted to it so that his name wasn't further dragged through the mud in an incredibly homophobic society where his main focus was maintaining his private life as best he could.
Stop putting Paul's name with those rapists.