Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-21-2016, 10:52 PM
 
1,997 posts, read 1,631,943 times
Reputation: 2819

Advertisements

all those who thought michael jackson was innocent

Michael Jackson Stockpiled Underage, Violent Pornography on Neverland Ranch, Report Shows
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-22-2016, 12:04 PM
 
23,548 posts, read 70,021,272 times
Reputation: 49010
Once I heard of the existence of Neverland Ranch, I never had a doubt that Jackson had a fetish for children in some way. With the other issues he had - extremely unusual and stressful childhood of his own, skin color issues, voice that didn't "drop" at puberty, crazed fans, drugs, etc. - his was a life I would not wish on my worst enemy. I was not surprised that he would seek solace in innocence and something far away from his career and its stress. How far that went, I left up to police, lawyers and judges. Failures there are troubling system failures, more important to rectify than any one crime or series of crimes.

I AM noticing something in the reporting and editorializing of the story that I am deeply uncomfortable with. There is conflation by the reporters/authors/commentators of the child porn with the other porn and visuals that were found, with the claim that it was ALL intended to desensitize children, a claim which requires magical powers of omniscience, since Jackson's interests were not one-dimensional in other aspects of his life. The claim of Jackson having violent imagery around strictly for the express purpose of desensitization is frankly idiotic, on a par with "He only kept steak knives in his kitchen so he could cut up people between 5' 10" and 5' 11" in height".

Each article that I read seems to wallow and rejoice like a pig in mud, claiming depravity and attempting to incite emotional outrage in the reader. That is bad enough from a journalistic standpoint, but it even becomes anti-social, as the puritanical individuals in this country have recently been denied the validity of their extreme hate for the gay community and are now primed for another witch-hunt against anything that isn't missionary sex.

I want to be clear here - pedophilia is wrong on a number of levels, but primarily because the objects of it, the children, are simply not knowledgeable enough or developed mentally enough to have an informed adult consent based on their own developed sense of values. Whether the enticement is a candy bar, a trip to Neverland, or porn, the core issue is with the pedophilia, not the enticement. The bush league "journalists" seem to have forgotten that. Ask yourself, would they detail the wrapper of an enticing candy bar with such fervor?

There are AMPLE violent images on the net, in movies, and in the news. We - as a nation - desensitize entire generations of children to violence and war in the pursuit of profits and ratings. To bring Jackson's collection of violent imagery up - in the same media sources that regularly disseminate images of extreme violence - and then go "Oh the horror!" is completely disingenuous.

Further, there is a very real community of people with kinks and fetishes that involve things like consensual S&M, bondage, etc.. The linking of that imagery to pedophilia in this fashion is the same type of media crap that was used to objectify and spit on gays and blacks for years, tossing bits of meat into the slathering lips of mad-dog hate hounds just waiting to be released on a new hunt.

I'm trying in vain to see a positive aspect of the reporting on this story. Jackson is dead - he can't be prosecuted. Reportedly, his alleged victims were paid off handsomely, so civil action and monetary compensation is already covered. What reporting does do is bring those victims back into the spotlight, just as they were getting on with their lives and trying to normalize. There have been smears against a little understood community, a ridiculous linking of violent imagery, and a type of "journalism" that doesn't even reach the bar for yellow journalism. I am fully as disturbed and disgusted by the reporting as I am by the alleged actions of Jackson. One person can do a lot of damage to a few people. The media, improperly used, can do TREMENDOUS damage to a lot of people and to society as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2016, 10:12 AM
 
23,548 posts, read 70,021,272 times
Reputation: 49010
Follow-up:

Michael Jackson's Estate Calls Reports of Stockpiled Pornography False: Enough Is Enough | E! News

"During his 2005 trial, authorities discovered Jackson owned conventional adult magazines like Playboy and Penthouse, but assert there was no child pornography among his belongings.

"There were photos of nude children but they weren't sexually graphic," Former Santa Barbara Senior Assistant District Attorney Ron Zonen, who worked for the prosecution during the case, told People. "They weren't children engaged in sexual activity and there was no child pornography. There were no videos involving children. There were videos that were seized but they were conventional adult sexually graphic material. No children involved." "


OK, there is a lesson to be learned here. Esquire, Huff Post, and a few other "news" sites really need to be put on your lists of UNRELIABLE AND UNTRUSTWORTHY web sites. If they are not even doing basic vetting of their stories before posting and editorializing, they are SCUM, they are the adult versions of the sleazy kids who were always trying to tell lies about your friends and you, and then were gloating on how much trouble and controversy they caused.

The sad thing is that legally, you cannot slander a dead person. That means that whatever outrageous lies - and even baldfaced lies with full knowledge that everyone KNOWS is a lie - cannot be prosecuted. News sources that make money spreading lies about the dead - people who cannot fight back or clear their names - are some of the lowest vermin on the planet. Those who collude with them do not rate much higher in my book.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2016, 03:57 PM
 
862 posts, read 1,189,239 times
Reputation: 1067
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
Follow-up:


The sad thing is that legally, you cannot slander a dead person. That means that whatever outrageous lies - and even baldfaced lies with full knowledge that everyone KNOWS is a lie - cannot be prosecuted. News sources that make money spreading lies about the dead - people who cannot fight back or clear their names - are some of the lowest vermin on the planet. Those who collude with them do not rate much higher in my book.

True however it's not easy for a living person to sue for slander either. Some years back my-coworker sued a radio disc jockey in my hometown because the dj had said on the air that my co-worker was bipolar and "..smoked a lot of pot". The reason why that disc jockey had said those things on the air was because he was mad and still bitter that my-coworker ( a program director at my radio station ) didn't hire him for a full time position that had opened up. Despite my co-worker having the said-broadcast on tape he dropped the lawsuit not because he wouldn't win ( he would had ) but in this PC world he was getting emails and letters from those who smoke marijuana and those who have bipolar. Both groups totally horrified that my co-worker would even consider suing another person because that person accused him of having bipolar and smoking marijuana since they see nothing wrong with either even though my co-worker didn't have bipolar nor did he smoke pot.

Many years ago I seem to recall Doris Day suing a tabloid ( don't remember which one ) because the paper had reported that Doris was eating trash from a dumpster and living life as a bag lady. If she would sue today over this sort of thing Doris Day would probably get hate mail from those thinking that Doris must hate the homeless since she is willing to sue because she was being called as such.

Last edited by tantan1968; 06-25-2016 at 04:31 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2016, 10:43 AM
 
23,548 posts, read 70,021,272 times
Reputation: 49010
I think what we all have to understand is that these are no longer the days of Walter Cronkite and news departments being completely isolated from advertising and pressure groups. The major media, to a large part, is no longer independent but a house organ for the large corporations, their directors, and the people and things they love. The second string media struggle to keep up income, tossing integrity by the side of the road as dead weight. Legal issues, like your friend had, work both ways. The vendetta against Gawker is a perfect example of revenge, best served cold. The mastermind is racing around seeking to hide under corporate garbage cans, like the rat he is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top