Facebook Bans Jane's Addiction Album Cover 'Nothing's Shocking'

Facebook has banned Jane's Addiction's album cover for "Nothing's Shocking" from appearing on the social-networking website.

The cover was posted on the band's official page as part of a series of classic images from the band's back catalogue.

The band posted the image with the message: "In 1988, nine of the 11 leading record chains refused to carry 'Nothing's Shocking' because of its cover."

Facebook later removed the picture, which features the image of two fully naked women, citing a violation of its Terms of Use.

Jane's Addiction responded by re posting the image with Facebook images blocking the offending areas.

Underneath the picture, the caption reads: In 1988, nine of the 11 leading record chains refused to carry "Nothing's Shocking" because of its cover (In 2011, Facebook joined them).

Thanks for the report to Gigwise.com.

Comments

[Jesus_Dean]

Well, I'm certainly thankful that FB is watching out for us! We wouldn't want to be exposed to any smut!

[MattKempton]

its not shocking

[Nor'Easterbass]

oh come on, if they let them post pictures of tits, then every else will want to -__-

[Salvo416]

next headline,

Facebook bans Janes Addiction Ritual de lo Habitual album cover.

[OddOneOut]

Meh, facebook doesn't allow any naked pictures. This album cover is no exception to the rule. No big deal *shrug* certainly not enough to make a news article about it.

[mathman51]

I guess if you post the track Ted, Just admit it that will be ok? fawking TOOLS they are. They probably think Ted works for some agency in the White House

[Pagan_Poetry]

Oh no! Something we can't see even though we will eventually later on in life and we probably find a way to purposely see it when we are in our tweens and there is nothing wrong with it! Egads!


I don't mean the boobs, by the way. I mean the Siamese twins on fire.

[technoguyx]

Big deal. It's been like this since always - common sense.

[Metallicaloveu]

I think the image is actually not even real women, I thought they were a sculpture made by Perry Farrell?

[MegaGreg]

Good, now we can get Nickelback out of there and then Facebook will be good!

[MegaGreg]

Well okay, for a sec I thought it said they banned the alubm, not the cover.

Uh...

Don't see the big deal over that.

[Ranmanbassist18]

they are TITS !!! big freaking deal !! we see them when we're babies and we see them when we're older !

[JAHellraiser]

Nor'Easterbass wrote:

oh come on, if they let them post pictures of tits, then every else will want to -__-

I honestly see no problem with that.

[eloera1]

who cares bout janes???

[BenAffleck]

Ranmanbassist18 wrote:

they are TITS !!! big freaking deal !! we see them when we're babies and we see them when we're older !

By see, I assume you mean "suck on". And those are your mom's tits you're talking about, you filthy, filthy man.

[C.O.B.]

Ok who gives a ****. It's a work of ****ing art. If they let Nirvana have a dick on their album then they can have tits on this one. This is a sexist act and I believe that Facebook is discriminating females because of body features.

[CydoniaKnight95]

Seriously? Why's everyone so pissed about it?
I completely agree with Facebook, I mean, if they allow this, they can't really justify stopping porn on it :P
I mean sure, I wouldn't mind, but I think FB's entirely justified to do this :P

[aig91]

Checked

[Basti95]

eloera1 wrote:

who cares bout janes???

I do. now fuck off.

[Horsedick.MPEG]

Salvo416 wrote:

next headline,

Facebook bans Janes Addiction Ritual de lo Habitual album cover.

+1

[SkepsisMetal]

CydoniaKnight95 wrote:

Seriously? Why's everyone so pissed about it?
I completely agree with Facebook, I mean, if they allow this, they can't really justify stopping porn on it :P
I mean sure, I wouldn't mind, but I think FB's entirely justified to do this :P

I dunno, someone on my friends list (I would hesitate to refer to them as a "friend") is a photographer for some arty magazine/website based in London, and his page has an album of at least 150 photos in with topless females. I very much doubt they've been reported, but who reported an album cover?!

[LIVEtoROCK86]

So Facebook can be used to stalk peoples lives and monitor our activity 24/7, but we can't look at art? Makes tons of sense.

[Trent Armitage]

Apparently, everyone thinks that Jane's Addiction is above the rules.

[CavemanJB]

Wonder if they banned Nirvana- Nevermind as well.

[Macabre_Turtle]

If you're offended by Facebook's actions, you may be part stupid. Just saying.

[Bati]

I guess Zuckerberg doesn't want the Westboro Baptist Church protesting HIS funeral.

[moscaespañol]

Well isn't that ironic.

[K!!LsWiTcH]

OddOneOut wrote:

Meh, facebook doesn't allow any naked pictures. This album cover is no exception to the rule. No big deal *shrug* certainly not enough to make a news article about it.

agreed record labels dont have a set terms of use. theres nothing on tumblr about that though so thats where it shouldve been

[Metallicam]

C.O.B. wrote:

Ok who gives a ****. It's a work of ****ing art. If they let Nirvana have a dick on their album then they can have tits on this one. This is a sexist act and I believe that Facebook is discriminating females because of body features.

They banned that cover too.

Trent Armitage wrote:

Apparently, everyone thinks that Jane's Addiction is above the rules.

This

[fifopher]

But it's not pornographic. Nudity doesn't have to be pornographic. Almost as bad as VEVO, sheesh...

[vanillasky]

It's not like it's a secret that Facebook doesn't allow female nipples in pictures.

[Root Beer]

Hmmmm, I wonder why...

[Root Beer]

lol why have a cover that sexual when it's just gonna hurt your sales?

[strung_out1]

eloera1 wrote:

who cares bout janes???

I do. now **** off.

+1

hopefully theres titties on the new album

[psychokiller99]

OMG!!! they are so rock n' roll!! they got a cover banned! BANNED!!!!!

[JD Close]

Root Beer wrote:

lol why have a cover that sexual when it's just gonna hurt your sales?

I don't see that as sexual at all. They are naked, big deal. I guarantee there aren't people going to a record store, buying the album and beating off to the cover or anything. I can't even find a record store. they are sexist for thinking all tits are porn. I want full frontal or my money back!

[BiscuitHammer]

NOOO!!! My virgin eyes!!

[CrawlingHorror]

Nipples are evil. Everybody knows that.

:p

[georgebushguy79]

BenAffleck wrote:

Ranmanbassist18 wrote:

they are TITS !!! big freaking deal !! we see them when we're babies and we see them when we're older !

By see, I assume you mean "suck on". And those are your mom's tits you're talking about, you filthy, filthy man.

Haha!

[TheHammer]

I was wondering why Witchfinder General never had a profile picture. Now I know...

[bigboo71289]

LIVEtoROCK86 wrote:

So Facebook can be used to stalk peoples lives and monitor our activity 24/7, but we can't look at art? Makes tons of sense.

Amen

[filipe26]

LIVEtoROCK86 wrote:

So Facebook can be used to stalk peoples lives and monitor our activity 24/7, but we can't look at art? Makes tons of sense.

Word!

[filipe26]

They probably did this to avoid issues though...And it's also publicity for Jane's (i don't like the band, and wouldn't have checked this link otherwise).

[link no1]

C.O.B. wrote:

Ok who gives a ****. It's a work of ****ing art. If they let Nirvana have a dick on their album then they can have tits on this one. This is a sexist act and I believe that Facebook is discriminating females because of body features.

Though this is probably a guy who is angry he can't view bewbs on Facebook, he has a pretty solid argument.

[bullsballs]

slow news day...

[grohl1987]

I fail to see the 'news' here. Nudity isn't allowed on Facebook, everyone knows this. A picture that includes two naked women is removed from Facebook? No shit.

It's their site, their rules, it's fine. You accept that sort of thing when you sign up and if you don't like it, you don't have to use it.

[sadstrangeman]

grohl1987 :
I fail to see the 'news' here. Nudity isn't allowed on Facebook, everyone knows this. A picture that includes two naked women is removed from Facebook? No shit.

It's their site, their rules, it's fine. You accept that sort of thing when you sign up and if you don't like it, you don't have to use it.

exactly, the number of artsy bleeding hearts here is ridiculous. facebook is a business not the united nations, if you don't like it's rules then leave. you wont be missed

[jordo246]

Root Beer wrote:

lol why have a cover that sexual when it's just gonna hurt your sales?

Not always about money.

[iscreamicecream]

Tits rule!...Zuckerberg is gay and Westboro

[eloera1]

strung_out1 :
eloera1 wrote:

who cares bout janes???

I do. now **** off.


+1

hopefully theres titties on the new album

why do you guys care??? Facebook is not your website, if you dont like it dont go to it. And if you like the art so bad, buy a poster, why does it matter to you if a certain website dosent wanna post their art.

[voodoochile000]

there is nothing here that's shocking...

[Quintex]

This is so cool, internet censorship and control. How things have changed.

The masses seem to like being told what is good or not good for them. No wonder our new gods are media and fashion designers.

[slaveskinJACKET]

That's shocking! No, wait. No, it's not.

They only temporarily banned the Nevermind cover (and then denied it ever happened). That one could easily be interpreted and used as child porn.

But this one's not even real people. It's a picture of a sculpture made by Perry Ferrell.

Also, it's funny how people get offended that you're upset with Facebook. It's like you're talking about their sister, or something.

[DSG3002]

It's an album cover, it's art. Art should NEVER be censored, even if there are "inappropriate body parts" or "bad words." Fuck Facebook.

[AnGeLiKuS]

Another FB crap. Seriously. I find it hilarious that Facebook makes a fuss over this when I see pictures of my friend's buddies posting naked girls all lined up, women with "camel toe", "suggestive" women in "suggestive" clothing, women wearing wet white shirts and others (don't wanna elaborate more). And then this kind of image was banned? Wanna get more dunce and famous, Zuckerberg? Just cuz Trent did the score on the film based on you doesn't mean anything BTW cuz I was betting my money on "The King's Speech" at the Oscars. Meh.

[Horsedick.MPEG]

sadstrangeman wrote:

grohl1987 :
I fail to see the 'news' here. Nudity isn't allowed on Facebook, everyone knows this. A picture that includes two naked women is removed from Facebook? No shit.

It's their site, their rules, it's fine. You accept that sort of thing when you sign up and if you don't like it, you don't have to use it. exactly, the number of artsy bleeding hearts here is ridiculous. facebook is a business not the united nations, if you don't like it's rules then leave. you wont be missed

It's UG, if they can't find a valid point in something they'll cry "it's art, it's art" without actually stating something of value.

[sparkeyjames]

Jesus_Dean wrote:

Well, I'm certainly thankful that FB is watching out for us! We wouldn't want to be exposed to any smut!

I'll bet depictions of shootings, dead bodies and violent war pictures are alright with you though.

[Root Beer]

jordo246 wrote:

Root Beer wrote:

lol why have a cover that sexual when it's just gonna hurt your sales?

Not always about money.

Then again, if you say you're not trying to make any money, you're lying.

[Root Beer]

Root Beer wrote:

jordo246 wrote:

Root Beer wrote:

lol why have a cover that sexual when it's just gonna hurt your sales?

Not always about money.

Then again, if you say you're not trying to make any money, you're lying.

Meaning that, in case you would otherwise take that statement the wrong way, you need money to live and these guys have to make a living out of being musicians. They need to make money.

[Starmaker]

BiscuitHammer wrote:

NOOO!!! My virgin eyes!!

:L:L:L

[paddyirishman]

I wonder if they'd block images of the Sistine Chapel's ceiling; you can see titties and willies in that!

[k3v1n shr3dz]

SkepsisMetal wrote:

I dunno, someone on my friends list (I would hesitate to refer to them as a "friend") is a photographer for some arty magazine/website based in London, and his page has an album of at least 150 photos in with topless females. I very much doubt they've been reported, but who reported an album cover?!

I'm gonna guess the band themselves flagged it so they could use the censoring as free publicity. It's not like anyone's talking about them lately.

[Gakbez]

Well, there are many pictures on wikipedia of closeups of private parts and stuff, I don't really see what the ****ing problem is here.

[mr.mangum]

Uh, isn't that the point of the album art? That went clear over FB's head and it's still soaring.

[Gman400]

Facebook doesn't allow nude pics for obvious reasons. It would probably essentially turn into either an amateur porn sight or an almost full-blown porn site if it did. Jane's Addiction doesn't get an exception.

[Darthkp]

Bati wrote:

I guess Zuckerberg doesn't want the Westboro Baptist Church protesting HIS funeral.

Nice

[powachord]

this is such a sad sign of the times we live in... This was the very first band Tshirt i ever got given back in the day... i guess some boobs are just too.. shocking (sorry)

[scorpio2billion]

As "musicians", you guys who defend Facebook should be ashamed of your own stupidity. This is an album cover that depicts a papier-mache work of ART. If iTunes took down your album just because they didn't think it was "good" or "acceptable", would you be so quick to defend them? ANY form of censorship is oppression. If the artists won't speak up about it, we'll all live in a world where we're told what we're allowed to enjoy. It seems a lot of the "artists" here are okay with that. About 3 months ago, Facebook removed about 800 photos of paintings from a New York art school. I permanently deleted my account right then. In this case, if you're not helping the arts, you're hurting them.

[Bisonberg]

Why do Americans have such a huge issue with the human body? Is it because, generally speaking, theirs look terrible?

[Skuzzmo]

scorpio2billion wrote:

As "musicians", you guys who defend Facebook should be ashamed of your own stupidity. This is an album cover that depicts a papier-mache work of ART. If iTunes took down your album just because they didn't think it was "good" or "acceptable", would you be so quick to defend them? ANY form of censorship is oppression. If the artists won't speak up about it, we'll all live in a world where we're told what we're allowed to enjoy. It seems a lot of the "artists" here are okay with that. About 3 months ago, Facebook removed about 800 photos of paintings from a New York art school. I permanently deleted my account right then. In this case, if you're not helping the arts, you're hurting them.

Sir, I salute you and your comment.