HorrorMovieFans.com

I thought this was funnier than shit.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/man ... 06515.html

I've seen him numerous times on TV bragging about being that baby.

"and, in fact, had the “Nevermind” emblem tattooed on this chest" ... so the guy who was the nevermind baby had that very image tattooed onto his body, and is now claiming it to be child porn?

Also, the irony of the baby chasing the dollar turning into the adult chasing the dollar is perfect.

Not only is this case going nowhere but now the world knows he's a moron.

Jesus fucking Christ. Modern society is absolutely insane. People will do anything for fucking money now. Sue and ruin someone's life over nothing just on the off chance you get a little extra paycheck. I realize they're suing a rock band and this isn't a personal lawsuit, but still, doesn't he feel the least bit sleazy? You should have thought of that before you went and posed nude for an album cover, dumbass.

"Mother was a golden girl. I slit her throat just to get her pearls"

Jason wrote:You should have thought of that before you went and posed nude for an album cover, dumbass.

I'm sure this wasn't meant to be taken seriously, due to the fact that he was four months old at the time, so it's not like he had a choice in the matter. It does, however, make me wonder: shouldn't he also be suing his parents for agreeing to, and being paid for, him being photographed in the nude as an infant? They even admit they didn't know what the pictures were for, just that they were being paid to let this guy take pictures of their naked child. Sounds like great parenting to me. :p

Slaughterhouserock wrote:

Jason wrote:You should have thought of that before you went and posed nude for an album cover, dumbass.

I'm sure this wasn't meant to be taken seriously, due to the fact that he was four months old at the time, so it's not like he had a choice in the matter. It does, however, make me wonder: shouldn't he also be suing his parents for agreeing to, and being paid for, him being photographed in the nude as an infant? They even admit they didn't know what the pictures were for, just that they were being paid to let this guy take pictures of their naked child. Sounds like great parenting to me. :p

Didn't know what it was for? Thats sick :x

Why is it so sick? It's a fucking baby photo, don't we all have those lovely embarrassing photos as a naked baby? Sucks his baby wang got plastered on a famous album cover, I guess, but Jesus H, you look like a billion others in that state, shut up.

Reign in Blood wrote:Why is it so sick? It's a fucking baby photo, don't we all have those lovely embarrassing photos as a naked baby? Sucks his baby wang got plastered on a famous album cover, I guess, but Jesus H, you look like a billion others in that state, shut up.

The difference being that the parents were paid to have their child photographed naked for unknown purposes, rather than the parents taking a photo for themselves that you would normally see in a family album or some shit. One is just a family pic, the other could be used for anything. Sick is probably a strong word for it, but, if nothing else, it shows a lack of forethought by the parents. Admittedly, this was pre-internet times, so child porn probably wasn't as readily accessible, but it's still questionable. I mean, you would think they'd at least ask what the shoot was for before giving consent.

Slaughterhouserock wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:Why is it so sick? It's a fucking baby photo, don't we all have those lovely embarrassing photos as a naked baby? Sucks his baby wang got plastered on a famous album cover, I guess, but Jesus H, you look like a billion others in that state, shut up.

The difference being that the parents were paid to have their child photographed naked for unknown purposes, rather than the parents taking a photo for themselves that you would normally see in a family album or some shit. One is just a family pic, the other could be used for anything. Sick is probably a strong word for it, but, if nothing else, it shows a lack of forethought by the parents. Admittedly, this was pre-internet times, so child porn probably wasn't as readily accessible, but it's still questionable. I mean, you would think they'd at least ask what the shoot was for before giving consent.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you said. You could throw a billion other babies into that pool for the photo shoot and it looks exactly the same. If some fucking freak wants to jackoff to it, you ain't stopping nothing. And yes,that wasn't prevalent in the early 90's, we're soooo fucking evolved now aren't we. We just get worse. Human race sucks, we only get worse.