All Blind Faith cds removed from Ebay on grounds of Child Porn

I say that because in my mind being a child predator is far, far, worse than being someone who bans a freaking LP COVER because it might be perceived as kiddie porn.

Yeah, silly me.

 

It would seem to me that those who are into kiddie porn have other means of getting their kicks (i.e. the Internet) other than bidding $20 for a nearly-forty-year-old superstar jam session rock album just so they can look at the cover.

 

There ya go! And, I almost agree with John B. Goode on principle. In my book, BOTH sides are just as evil.

 

That's twisted, man. She'll mess up her brothers.

 

I love this album having owned it on LP and CD but never with the controversial cover, I didn't like it. I don't think it is porn and worthy of being banned, I just think it was a poor artistic choice and in poor taste.

Chris

 

I was in a local supermarket (Auchan) today, which has a music/video/games section, including some LPs. A Blind Faith reissue LP was on display (without any censoring sticker), in front of several other LPs from Universal's "Back to vinyl" series. Nobody paid attention to it

 

My friends and I bought this album the day it came out. The cover was discussed for maybe five minutes, we were a lot more interested in the music inside. After Cream "Goodbye" everybody wanted to know what the new "Super Group" was going to sound like. But to tell you the truth, I enjoyed Jack Bruces "Songs for a Tailor much more.
Sorry for straying off track...Back to Ebay

 

You were in a supermarket that sold vinyl.... cool.

 

Just curious...

Would this cover be pulled from E-Bay, or these forums if used as an avatar? If so, why?

 

Question Authority...

What about it folks... Am I way off base here?

 

Not completely.

The Blind Faith cover is about as porn to me as a paper bag. But it is showing bodily exposure from a minor. That can't be denied.

First thing I think of when I see that freckled girl is.... "Had To Cry Today" and that riff.

But to me, it was pure artistic expression.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbillswildride
Even if we won the battle, we've lost the war already, by even having to defend it in the first place... The Ancients had no problem with nudity, at least as far as Art goes and apppreicating the human form, male, female, young, and old, but I guess we've devolved sins then, and called it Progess...


cheers,


spot on.



Yes, the girl is underaged, and yes it is Art... who gets to be the morality police? and why do we let them? Art is Art, porn is porn... big A small p...

 

Art turns to porn when someone who has NO CLUE what Blind Faith was, and feels the teen in the cover was titillating. Bullocks, bullocks, bullocks.

 

What about Anne Murray's "Where do you go when you dream"? Perhaps eBay had a problem with the Blind Faith cover because the girl was older and her body was developing? :

 

Well, Anne Murray's body never developed so that cover is probably ok.


......

 

Looks like Angelic Kiddie Porn to me... Shame on you Ann... So all the Murray fans who bought this album are porn peddlers too now? Where does it stop?

 

I work with one of them, and have been friends with him for years. He's OK, but I don't know about his brother. Has nothing to do with nudism.

I know of a few nudist families. It's about the concept of freedom. It's not about sex.

I could never do it because I was raised like most people in our culture, to cover up. But, I understand the concept.

However, it would be interesting to visit a nudist colony.

 

Just remember to put a towel over it.

 

Momma's Boy...

You should see the cute kiddy prom my mommy paint for me, framed, and is now hanging above my record collection, in plain view... see Audiophile Artwork thread (search) post #25... My god there is just oddles of them naked kids...

 

To add to that, it's only porn if it is presenting the naked person in a sexually titillating way, or in a way to induce arousal. There's the part that people debate, and the interpretation of the law comes in. What if a person becomes aroused viewing the album cover? Sick, yes, but, does that then make it pornography? And, to murk it up a bit more, is it then a felony to display it on a record store shelf if a minor sees it?

 

just wondering Grant: you say "I could never do it", yet you make a point elsewhere about doing the opposite of what society wants/expects... what difference does your "raising" make? please explain

 

First, from what i've been told, it's like if someone wears glasses, and to get to the real person, they take them off so you can see into their eyes a bit better. That's what removing clothes is supposed to do, remove the BS that people hide behind. So, it's a psychological thing.

Next, your question: You can be different while working inside the limits. It's like exceeding the speed limit. Some people never exceed the speed limit, and it would make some people very happy if you never did. Some people drive over the limit as far as the law will allow without getting a speeding ticket. If the sign says 75, and they say they won't pull you over unless you are going 85, I will drive 80 or 83. Some people can't, or shouldn't drive very fast. Some people can handle it.

Some people see the world in only black or white, right or wrong. The world is actually shades of grey.

 

Every thread gets turned into a Monkees thread.

 

I'm a believer.

 

Exactly. One could easily say that those who think this is porn are the ones with the problem. The cover isn't immoral, those who see it as porn as the ones who are immoral. Ever say something innocently at work and have a co-worker say "that's dirty"? Well, what was said was innocent and not intended to be dirty, so to me the "sin" is commited by the person with sees things as "dirty."

The thing that needs to be changed is the mind of people who see innocent things as dirty or porn, certainly not the artwork itself.