Hacker News Reader

Comment by Fnoord | Hacker News Reader

First one coming to mind is Nirvana's Nevermind. I guess cause I bought it for a friend's birthday. She specifically asked for me for that album, so all I did was buying it. But it was weird, especially as I was a young boy back then (IIRC around 11 y.o.). I doubt it'd be OK to publish an album cover like that nowadays, and frankly, I agree.

Bad is subjective though. I mean, look at all the Thunderdome covers. Terribly cheesy if you ask me, but youth found it cool I guess. Then again, some people would say Lords of Acid's covers are bad (or "satanistic") whereas other would say "kinky". That's the problem with the term 'bad'; its too open for interpretation. Imagine a website with "bad news articles". Same problem.

View on HN

What? The Nevermind cover is generally considered one of most iconic of all time...

Iconic? Iconic of what? Its a naked baby. The baby gave no consent for being photographed naked (as nobody age < 18 can give legal consent for such). A naked picture of a baby belongs only to the parents, not the entire world.

Only thing it has going for it, is that when the album was released there was no widespread Internet usage among civilians. With no Internet as we know it today available, that makes an eventual outcry about the picture less likely, and more difficult to organize. But I for sure remember it being controversial back then.

There really is no particular reason that a picture of a clothed baby is any less private than that of a nude one, in my mind. Did you not see nude children at the beach as an 11-year old child?

Terrible analogy.

Picture is different than live. Intent is different, too.

CD cover was completely unexpected for me.

Ignoring your own children, do you normally take pictures of nude children on a beach? Would you commercialize a naked picture of your baby son?

I wouldn't take a picture of clothed children or adults at the beach either. I wouldn't commercialize a clothed picture of my baby son.

I am not shocked when I see a nude child, whether in a picture or in real life, so for me it was an apropos analogy.

It would be a shame if anyone was cancelled (at the time or now) just because of a photo like this. It would be double shame if Nirvana was cancelled, they were a major inspiration for maybe a half of my generation. That baby's parents consented, so that's it.

> Geffen records wasn’t thrilled about a penis on the cover, even though it was a baby, and had prepared an alternate cover, Cobain made it clear that the only compromise he would accept was a sticker covering the penis that would say, "If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile."

Quote above is from [0] which includes the backstory, and the fact that the now-grown child seems quite happy to have been involved. He even recreated it.

[0] https://937theriver.iheart.com/featured/derek-moore/content/...

What if the child wasn't happy with being involved? You can't give consent to such a thing if you're < 18. That's the very issue at hand.

As for Cobain's argument that anyone offended by that "must be a closet pedophile" that is just an ad hominem. The issue isn't whether someone's offended by it; its that a minor does not and cannot give consent about commercialization of their naked picture.

While I'm of the opinion that people should be able to grow up with the mindset that their bodies are nothing to be ashamed of, it might be best for someone to decide if they want any particular naked photo published after they're of age.

> Bad is subjective

Counterpoint: http://www.zonicweb.net/badalbmcvrs/letmetouch.jpg

Homosexuality can be good, depending on your viewpoint. Same for religion. Maybe him refers to God.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com