Official - Michael Jackson was scum

[DragonLady]

Certainly not?

"The effect of the image is certainly transgressive, and those who are uncomfortable with any sexualized depiction of children will probably have pejorative labels for this work."

Sounds like kiddie porn.

And yet, it wasn't.

Again, MJ had thousands of books. Why would anyone be judged by a handful of oddball stuff from a huge collection?

There was nothing in that list to determine what MJ thought of any of it.

Who knows when, how, or why he acquired it?
Who knows if he ever even looked through it?

This may comes as a shock: but artists study art. It's part of the creative process to fill the "creative tank" with thousands of images of all kinds of ideas and all kinds of techniques and styles. It's part and parcel of the package of being in any kind of entertainment or creative field.

MJ had a lot of materials related to men and male sexuality, but I would not want to jump to the conclusion he was homosexual or bisexual based on them. As a dancer, those thousands of images also fueled his artistic vocabulary, and that may have been his primary reason for collecting them. The human form -body types, poses, lighting and the emotional impact on a viewer would be extremely important to him.

 

[Checkmite]

I see where you're coming from and I don't necessarily disagree, but on this site doesn't this chain of logic typically end with "and that is why I believe in Bigfoot?"

The reason that is not an effective analogy is that "Bigfoot" doesn't exist, whereas pedophiles - even wealthy and/or famous ones - do. One is an extraordinary claim where as the other is quite mundane.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Well, I've been a full on consumer of the blue milk over this for years.

Sorry Jacko.

(anyone remember when we had a press with journalistic integrity?)

Yes, and I apologize to my children for the ongoing Slow Death Of Professional Journalism about once a month when something truly dreadful crosses my awareness.

This same low-effort ClickBait media system is responsible for the Rise of Trump. Ten years ago his campaign opening speech would have ended his primary instantly, but disenchanted low-information habitual Republicans who only know what some shiney talking head tells them voted for him because the media dropped the ball over and over.

 

[Checkmite]

'All'? There were 2 kids. There were 3 accusations, but 1 of them chose to flee the country to avoid testifying against Michael Jackson.

Of those 2 kids, one had his (or rather his parents had their) day in court, and the jury unanimously found against them, and not over a technicality. The third kid was actually a part of MJ's defence team, but about a decade later wanted to sue for molestation which the courts did not uphold. Make of that what you will.

During the trial there was testimony from a fourth person, the son of a former Neverland Ranch maid, whose alleged abuse took place too long ago to warrant criminal charges but whose testimony was still permitted under California law.

The third kid you mention was not "part of MJ's defense team", but had simply been called as a witness for the defense. His 2013 lawsuit against Jackson's estate for molestation was dismissed because California law only gives claimants one year after an individual's death to file a claim against that individual's estate. There is also a fifth person now grown, who made his own allegations against Jackson at the same time as the man who had been that "third kid" did.

That makes (so far) five different and unconnected individuals, all of whom were actually confirmed to have spent time with Jackson at around the same age. One's allegations were not found to be credible; one was settled out of court; the remainder have no technical legal recourse and thus will remain open questions.

 

[Giordano]

To state the obvious: the sincere and legitimate concerns as to the sexual exploitation of children by adults has often now resulted in many people seeing any depiction of nudity of children as pedophilia, especially in the USA. This is a significant change from many other countries, and even in the USA a few decades ago, where/when children were not viewed as potential sexual objects by society as a whole and child nudity (at beaches for example) was considered perfectly appropriate. Child nudity in art was also considered an example of innocence, not of perversion.

It seems to be that recognition that children are sexually exploited by some people in society is a very important advance in protecting them, but has now made many images of children, and people such as teachers just innocently patting children on their shoulders, or even being alone with a child, highly sensitive topics. People have been assaulted for simply taking a photo of an outdoor scene including fully clothed children if a witness has considered the photographer to "look creepy." Parents have be questioned by police if they had photos of their own children at age 2 in a bath.

I don't have any easy universally applicable rule, but I fear that by trying to protect children we run the risk of imposing a sexuality on them that is not there, making them and their parents paranoid, and punishing people who enjoy children in completely innocent ways. A nude image of a child may be a painting of a cherub or true child pornography. A teacher hugging a 6 year old may be a wonderful mentor or a pervert. One much be careful to determine which is which before going on a witch hunt.

 

[DragonLady]

making them and their parents paranoid, and punishing people who enjoy children in completely innocent ways.

Yes; this.

I don't personally give a damn whether or not MJ was a child molester. I never met the man, I wasn't a big fan, and so I have no reason to care.

However, I do very much want to stop the predation on children without preventing people from being able to provide for children, make children happy, and enjoy children without being subjected to ruinous accusations and false prosecutions.

These allegations destroyed MJ's life in so many ways. Despite his acquittal, the accusations just continue to fly 'round on endless cycles of wash, rinse, spin, repeat. Despite all his money, his talent, his fame, and his charitable efforts, his name has become almost synonymous with child molestation.

It would've been less harmful to him to have been convicted of murder, I think, then it was to just be repeatedly accused and tried for molestation.

Obviously we all want to prevent child abuse, and we all want to punish those who engage in it. But we need to be very, very careful before we start making accusations, and when someone is charged and acquitted we all need to let it go and move on.

It's too late for MJ. The man is dead. But he has living children and other relatives who are still suffering over this. Can't we all -as individuals- do our own share of "victim advocacy" by letting those affected to live without being constantly reminded of his failings, whatever they were?

 

[Babbylonian]

It's too late for MJ. The man is dead. But he has living children and other relatives who are still suffering over this. Can't we all -as individuals- do our own share of "victim advocacy" by letting those affected to live without being constantly reminded of his alleged failings, whatever they were?

FTFY...replacing "were" with "might have been" would have worked, too.

 

[John Nowak]

The reason that is not an effective analogy is that "Bigfoot" doesn't exist, whereas pedophiles - even wealthy and/or famous ones - do. One is an extraordinary claim where as the other is quite mundane.

No harm accusing people of being child molesters, then.

 

[Checkmite]

These allegations destroyed MJ's life in so many ways. Despite his acquittal, the accusations just continue to fly 'round on endless cycles of wash, rinse, spin, repeat. Despite all his money, his talent, his fame, and his charitable efforts, his name has become almost synonymous with child molestation.

It would've been less harmful to him to have been convicted of murder, I think, then it was to just be repeatedly accused and tried for molestation.

He also continued to make new albums, sell millions of records, and earn hundreds of millions of dollars - earnings that have continued years after his death; it hasn't been documented that the child molestation allegations made even a dent in Jackson's career in terms of measurable numbers. Jackson was falling into dangerous debt before the allegations; as a result of them, he ended up selling Neverland Ranch which not only resolved his debt, but catapulted him far back into comfortable self-made multi-millionaire status. News of Jackson's death literally broke the internet, and his televised funeral was watched by over 30 million mourning fans, meaning this man whose name you say has become almost synonymous with child molestation died the single most beloved pop culture entertainer in the history of the planet.

 

[Fudbucker]

And yet, it wasn't.

Again, MJ had thousands of books. Why would anyone be judged by a handful of oddball stuff from a huge collection?

There was nothing in that list to determine what MJ thought of any of it.

Who knows when, how, or why he acquired it?
Who knows if he ever even looked through it?

This may comes as a shock: but artists study art. It's part of the creative process to fill the "creative tank" with thousands of images of all kinds of ideas and all kinds of techniques and styles. It's part and parcel of the package of being in any kind of entertainment or creative field.

MJ had a lot of materials related to men and male sexuality, but I would not want to jump to the conclusion he was homosexual or bisexual based on them. As a dancer, those thousands of images also fueled his artistic vocabulary, and that may have been his primary reason for collecting them. The human form -body types, poses, lighting and the emotional impact on a viewer would be extremely important to him.

I have a lot of books too. I don't have any books with sexualized depictions of children.

Maybe MJ was really into art. Or maybe he liked to sleep with little boys and got off on sexualized depictions of children.

Again, I'm not saying he molested kids. That doesn't make him not a creepy perv, which I think the evidence clearly shows he was.

 

[Checkmite]

No harm accusing people of being child molesters, then.

Pedophilia, not child molestation. But, I'd propose there's no effective harm in accusing a dead guy of anything really.

 

[quadraginta]

IIRC, wasn't he kidnapped from his bedroom?

That's what they said. But you know about them.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Certainly not?

"The effect of the image is certainly transgressive, and those who are uncomfortable with any sexualized depiction of children will probably have pejorative labels for this work."

Sounds like kiddie porn.

Except that the prosecution and the person who collected it and was trained to know, both say that it wasn't.

What it was was a collection of photos created by an artist that had been displayed in a galley and subsequently were published in a book.

This was the same as many of the other books listed.

If it had been a book filled with Renaissance Paintings of cherubs, Greek gods, and other nude and naked people would you think that this was suspicious? If not, then why would more modern versions of this sort of art be so suspicious, especially when these books are fully available to the public and the images had been displayed in galleries around the world?

 

[Fudbucker]

Except that the prosecution and the person who collected it and was trained to know, both say that it wasn't.

What it was was a collection of photos created by an artist that had been displayed in a galley and subsequently were published in a book.

This was the same as many of the other books listed.

If it had been a book filled with Renaissance Paintings of cherubs, Greek gods, and other nude and naked people would you think that this was suspicious? If not, then why would more modern versions of this sort of art be so suspicious, especially when these books are fully available to the public and the images had been displayed in galleries around the world?

But it wasn't Renaissance paintings. It had sexualized depictions of children. I know, it technically fell under the category of art. The book's legal status doesn't have any bearing on whether MJ got off on it. I think he did.

 

[Jules Galen]

We shouldn't talk bad about the dead. Michael is probably in Heaven now doing what he does best: flying around like Peter Pan on his new wings, singing with the angels, and molesting Cherubs (I hope he doesn't get into trouble for that!).

 

[PhantomWolf]

But it wasn't Renaissance paintings. It had sexualized depictions of children. I know, it technically fell under the category of art. The book's legal status doesn't have any bearing on whether MJ got off on it. I think he did.

Do you have proof or just speculation? Or do you think everyone that viewed and purchased this art was in it for getting off on the pictures? Have you actually seen the pictures involved, or are you making your mind up without any facts at all?

 

[Fudbucker]

Do you have proof or just speculation? Or do you think everyone that viewed and purchased this art was in it for getting off on the pictures? Have you actually seen the pictures involved, or are you making your mind up without any facts at all?

I read the link you provided about the book a couple posts back. Aren't links facts?

And of course I'm speculating. I don't have video of him wacking off to it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I have a lot of books too. I don't have any books with sexualized depictions of children.

You don't own a copy of Romeo and Juliet? She was decidedly underage.

 

[Fudbucker]

You don't own a copy of Romeo and Juliet? She was decidedly underage.

When I was in high school, my English teacher showed some Romeo and Juliet movie, and when Juliet rolled out of bed, she was topless. We freshman all started cracking up, and the movie was abandoned.

 

[Checkmite]

I *assume* that's this:

https://www.amazon.com/Room-Play-Simen-Johan/dp/1931885214/

I don't know what's in it, but I'm fairly certain if I can buy it on Amazon.com, it's probably not illegal.

That book is different from the two discussed earlier. Those two contained actual nude photographs of boys; this book on the other hand seems to have taken children and photoshopped various things onto them (including nude adult parts, apparently).