2021年8月26日木曜日
Nevermind Nirvana
Tarp has sprung a leak
And the animals I've trapped
Have all become my pets
And I'm living off of grass
And the drippings from my ceiling
It's okay to eat fish
Cause they don't have any feelings
2021年8月19日木曜日
リチウム
ニルヴァーナ「ネヴァーマインド」ジャケ写裁判があっさり決着 お札追う赤ちゃん本人が「性的搾取」と主張
https://nlab.itmedia.co.jp/nl/articles/2201/05/news145.html
In August 2021,[51] Elden filed a lawsuit against Weddle, Cobain's estate, Grohl and Novoselic, claiming that the use of his likeness on the album cover was made without his consent or that of his legal guardians, that it violated federal child pornography statutes,[52] and that it resulted in "lifelong damages".[53] Elden said that, by refusing to censor the artwork with a sticker, Nirvana had failed to protect him from child sexual exploitation.[54] The lawsuit also states: "Cobain chose the image depicting Spencer—like a sex worker—grabbing for a dollar bill that is positioned dangling from a fishhook in front of his nude body with his penis explicitly displayed."[55][56]
Attorney Jamie White criticized the lawsuit as "frivolous" and "really offensive to the true victims" of child sexual abuse. Fordham Law School professor James Cohen said the context of the cover "doesn't suggest that it's pornography". White and Cohen concluded that Elden's intention was to make money with the lawsuit.[57] In December, lawyers for the defendants sought to dismiss the lawsuit, saying it was filed too late and that its claim that the image depicts sexual abuse is "not serious". They noted that Elden had "spent three decades profiting from his celebrity as the self-anointed 'Nirvana Baby'", having recreated the artwork several times, and that he had the album title tattooed on his chest. They argued that the cover instead "evokes themes of greed, innocence, and the motif of the cherub in western art".[58] After Elden's lawyers did not file an opposition, the lawsuit was dismissed by a judge on January 3, 2022.[59]
2022年1月6日木曜日
バイデンさん、こっそりワクチン集団接種政策大失敗宣言、ワクチン接種者にとって全ては「後の祭り」!(爆wwwwwwwwww
Obscenity court ruling
Perhaps the best-known use of the term is in the title of the 1977 punk rock album Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols. Testimony in a resulting prosecution over the term demonstrated that in Old English, the word referred to a priest, and could also be used to mean "nonsense". Defence barrister John Mortimer QC and Virgin Records won the case: the court ruled that the word was not obscene.[52] It just means "put aside all of that other rubbish and pay attention to this".[1] In a summary for the defence, Mortimer asked,
What sort of country are we living in if a politician comes to Nottingham and speaks here to a group of people in the city centre and during his speech a heckler replies "bollocks". Are we to expect this person to be incarcerated, or do we live in a country where we are proud of our Anglo-Saxon language? Do we wish our language to be virile and strong or watered down and weak?[53]
Tony Wright, a Leicestershire trader, was given an £80 fixed penalty fine by police for selling T-shirts bearing the slogan "Bollocks to Blair". This took place on 29 June 2006 at the Royal Norfolk Show; the police issued the penalty notice, quoting Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 which refers to language "deemed to cause harassment, alarm or distress".[54]
3 件のコメント:
ジャケ写の人は自分でも大人になって同じ構図で撮った写真公開して売名してたような‥。
そういえば、BS11でシュタゲゼロの再放送始まりました。
おさらいしろってことかな。
そういう趣向の方はそういう趣向なんでしょうな
コンプレックスは人間の性www
趣向が多様であること知ったら誰だって訴えるってばよw
親が敢て差し出す口か無防備だったかは大きいよね
撮影時どうだったかとかの御託は採用しちゃった
現実を越えることにはならないからね
コメントを投稿