this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
27 points (77.6% liked)

Pop Culture

203 readers
1 users here now

News and discussions about celebrities, whether they be actors, musicians, social media influences, politicians, or anyone else of reasonable renown, as well as other cultural issues.

Rules:

  1. No hate speech, personal attacks, harassment, doxxing, bullying, etc. are all strictly forbidden.

  2. Posts must directly relate to Pop Culture in some form. Memes are acceptable if they are not excessive. Moderators have discretion and will work with community members to determine when such content becomes excessive.

  3. AI-generated articles, pictures, and videos are prohibited. This does not preclude posts about AI, so long as it is about pop culture.

  4. Follow site-wide rules.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] EdibleFriend 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Dude has been screaming he's the Nevermind baby his entire life. He literally has Nevermind tattooed across his fucking chest.

[–] metallic_substance 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yeah, the guy seems deeply uncool and desperate. Look at pictures of this motherfucker. He styles his hair to look like Cobain. He's got nothing going for him but this tiny nugget of worn out cred

[–] TIMMAY 1 points 1 year ago

I cant tell if tiny nugget is intentional phrasing or not

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, it ain't child porn by any legal standards I'm aware of in the US.

I'm amazed the suit wasn't dismissed out of hand because he has no actual damages

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Here is the decision. Relevant part:

The question whether the Nevermind album cover meets the definition of child pornography is not at issue in this appeal.

Whether or not the photo caused damages is what the trial is for. A lawsuit being unlikely to win at trial isn't grounds for dismissal. The defendants moved for dismissal because the plaintiff waited until he was 30 years old to sue for damages, which the initial judge agreed was too long. The appellate judges decided that since the image has been republished as recently as 2021, plaintiff has grounds to a trial since the recent republishing could be what caused the alleged damages.

My opinion is that the plantiff is just looking for settlement money. American trials are expensive for defendants even if they win. It's often cheaper to settle out of court than to go to trial and win a slam dunk case.

[–] kylie_kraft 15 points 1 year ago

pay attention to meeee

[–] cosmicrookie 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If he should sue anybody for this, it should be his parents not nirvana

[–] TIMMAY 5 points 1 year ago

So if this is ruled CP somehow then every instance of seeing a baby butt or shirtless baby in media is going to be censored and removed or what? Seems like a big deal about nothing

[–] Beetschnapps 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I’m sure he’ll focus on Houses of the Holy next. /s

[–] CobblerScholar 3 points 1 year ago

Either this guy wants to be the modern day Herostratus or I'm being fucked with

[–] EvergreenGuru -5 points 1 year ago

He wants to get paid and he should get something, but this is the wrong way to go about it.