445
How in the hell are these legal? (europe.pub)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
242 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

(not my image. I just find these comical and incredibly dangerous)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 week ago* (2 children)

The term used was 'hostile', not 'harmful'. There's a difference IMO.

But anyway I would argue some album covers could be considered propaganda, which is potentially harmful to society.

And then there's stuff like the original cover of Virgin Killer by the Scorpions. A lot of folks would call that directly harmful in some way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    There's a difference here that's important about what it means to be actively hostile.

    Yes, some types of art in general have a hostile face. Some metal, some gangster rap, some pop even.

    The difference is that nobody but the most fucked up people is going around forcing it on me. I don't have to fear getting to close to the cover of Mayhem's "Dawn of the Black Hearts". I can ignore it if it's right next to me. Ignoring Swangas is detrimental to my health. Album covers don't amputate my legs when they come to close.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •