I agree with the man suing.
No one should make money over selling naked baby pictures. Except perhaps for valid medical purposes.
I’ll probably be a minority in FR but nope.
Why did people allow it at the time?
Idiotic, God-damned, moral fascist thinking. Normal people don't get turned on by pictures of babies. Execute the pedophiles and leave the rest of us normal people alone.
If you have raised your own children you know that these pictures are inherently innocent.
Nutjobs are everywhere. I have a few family pictures like this of my own children as babies/toddlers and there is not a goddamned thing wrong with it.
pornographers’ always play the game that this is the exception to the CP rule and then say that there is artistic reasons. even if this is just money grab and the guy was not hurt. the fact that this was allowed to be produced was wrong and those involved should be sued over this if only to prevent others in the entertainment industry from thinking they are the exception that should be allowed.
You're not alone. I always found that album cover disturbing and was certain that every pedophile had it front and center on the coffee table. I have always believed it was inappropriate and should never have been done.
Oh please...
Although I do like Dave Grohl and the petard thing
Insufferable lefty he is
Smug
Self righteous
Child pornographer....lol
He recreated the cover several times and has Nevermind tattooed on his chest; why the sudden change of heart? Also, I find it hard to believe that if the pic was unauthorized that his parents (or "legal guardians" as the article states) didn't take legal action in the 90's. The record label may, at best, owe this guy monetary comp for the use of the picture, it's a far cry from child porn. While your heart is in the right place, I would suggest you rethink your support of this guy; he's grifting.
Lets be real.. This is ludicrous. Who notices that stuff and is emotionally motivated? - A sick person.