Actually, it is so OMG! If I walked into someone's house and found a book filled with kiddy porn, I'd want to get out ASAP. Also, finding movies with violence in them is not the same at all. Unless, of course, you find 200 copies of the same movie in the house.

And you are a racist SithLord, shut it.

I used OJ as an example because he was also obviously guilty, not because he was black. Way to assume. (Unless you weren't talking about what I said about OJ)

http://www.courttv.com/trials/jackson/042905_ctv.html



Whatever floats your boat, pommy.

Heh, just like in the OJ case. Some very good reasons must have been there, right?

Like maybe fear for their lives? Maybe the fact a riot would start? Maybe because they are influenced by MJ's power? Maybe because they are stupid and have their own agenda? There are numerous factors to be considered; being acquitted on ALL TEN counts seem to point to other things than justice at play.

One thing we can't deny. Something odd was happening at Neverland ranch. The circumstances force one to at least acknowledge this; what the extent of his actions were and what exactly he did is not definitively known. However, one can easily take a guess...

OJ didn't do it. Everyone knows that.

A Clockwork Orange is one of my favorite movies. Therefore, I rape women and stab hobos in my spare time.

(And yes, naked young boys can be art. I'm too lazy to justify that but I will if I need to.)

I insist that it's not. If you believe people truly are so free from perversions then you are a very lucky person in that you've never met the nature of a certainly unrare group of people.

(Directed at whoever said "it is so OMG")

Far from it.

Namecalling because you disagree.

Would a book of pre-pubescent naked girls be considered art? I highly doubt it.

You missed my point, and my analogy is not faulty.

SithLord. Sorry for taking your scholarship. Have a nice day. I'll this 3000 stipend I get for being black. Oh god I never worked for anything in mylifee.....

Art major - went to school for photography - has some pictures of naked little boys = Seems okay considering the above.

Michael Jackson - accused of molesting children more than once - has some pictures of naked little boys = Creepy and sick considering the above..

Ok then, refute or back off.

Refute what? Your ignorant comments?

Statues of little naked girls shooting arrows at people seem to be art.

The question isn't even whether or not kiddy porn is art, or whether or not MJ had "art" or kiddy porn .. the point is that the posession of kiddy porn DOESN'T automatically mean you're going to molest a child .. that's absolutely ridiculous. There are about four levels of logic you just jumped to make that conclusion.

The other point is that if you think it's shocking for people to posess child porn, (again) you must be very lucky, because the truth is that many many many people, even those who (proclaim to be)/are otherwise morally nearly excellent at one time or another will fall into such perversion. To say that people who have some form of child pornography, no matter how mild, in their posession is rare is just ignorant.

So, 1) it's not uncommon, 2) it in no way automatically convicts the person. At the very lowest logical level, you can't prove a hypothesis with ONE PREMISE!

Damn... I didn't get the memo When did this happen?

Stupid that OJ had to be black; I used him as an example because he was the last MAJOR celebrity court case. Martha Stewart and That-one-actress were up against relatively minor charges; OJ and MJ were up against murder and molestation, respectively.

Seriously, is MJ considered black? Just look at him; look at his current actions. I don't think anyone seriously puts a race on him. I think this was more or less a bloody cultural icon going on trial versus a bunch of children who were sold by their greedy parents.

I need to fnid something to spend this 2000 dollars I got for just pencilling I am black on some application. Want to help?

It depends. If the book is titled "Female Models for Traditional Art", yes. If it's title "Lolita Gangbang 05 House Party", probably not.

If that's how you refer to well known facts then yes.

This is bull****.

Prison is obviously for poor people, if you are rich or famous, you can pretty much count on a not guilty verdict or at worst a slap on the wrist.

I'd help you, but this 35K a year I get for my MD/Phd program from NIH is giving me enough trouble as it is. Sorry I couldn't be of any help

Seriously though, what the HELL is your point. "LOLZ, OJ and MJ are free, fear white America". I dunno, that just seems incredibly ignorant.

It should be, in MJ's case, "Fear CHILDREN of white America".

And no one gives a **** how much money you get. Bark up another tree.

That all black celebs get away with crimes? That is your opinion, not a fact. Apparenty by our justice system, OJ didnt do it, and neither did Mike. Your perception on that is opinion. Nothing more, and nothing less.

That is ok, I am just trying to help all the white kids who feel that they got chisted even though I make better grades, and have a better resume then them. SithLord looked like he could use some help.

Pommy, you think owning kiddie porn isn't rare? I think you're nuts. Porn in general, isn't rare, child porn is a whole different animal.

If a hetrosexual male has naked pictures of underage girls, it should be considered child porn. If a homosexual male has naked pics of underage boys, it should be considered child porn.

MJ has shown a preference for associating (including sleeping) with young boys since the 80s. If there is even a shred of concern that one of these young boys might be molested, MJ should NOT be allowed around children! After almost two decades of accusations, it is completely unconsciable that this jury found him innocent.

If it was up to me, I'd make all the jurors subject thier children to Neverland sleepovers. Serves them right.

Just to note that the comparison to the OJ trial isn't just going on in this thread - I've seen it brought up on a couple other boards I visit (this topic is all over right now of course) and on CNN a reporter was comparing the "popularity" of the two trials worldwide... MJ's trial got a lot more viewers than OJ because of his international appeal. Whatever is causing people to compare them, it's not just here.

As for race, I think if you want to isolate that as the main issue in someone's situation, it helps if their other traits fall somewhere near the social norm so you can focus fully on the race thing. MJ has so many things not even vaguely close to the social norm that his race is just one among many odd factors to consider. OJ was easier, he was boring as hell and was a typical American guy, so it was easier for the media and the people to focus on his race as the issue (again, instead of whatever the actual trial revealed...)

I'm talking about the concept of affirmative action, which you failed to address.



Except just because you make better grades does not apply to everyone.

Danger Will Robinson! Danger!

This does not belong here.

Who woulda though that Michael Jackson was found not guilty via affirmative action?

Ubuu, I really didn't consider MJ a black defendant, but you seem so insistant, can you name a black celebrity that has been found guilty of anything recently? OJ? MJ? Kobe? Ray Lewis? Half the NFL/NBA for that matter?

Explain to me where Affirmative Action was developed to cheat people out of going to prison?

Ray Caruth, got convicted in 1999/2000 for 1st degree murder. He was a Pro Bowl cornerback for the carolina panthers.

Lol, Rae Carruth was the only one I could think of too.

:/

Well that just means the others didn't do it.

Oh C-Murder, and rapper for No Limit got convicted of murder two years ago. that was pretty big in the music industry.

That made me crack up.

ReT

You are COMPLETELY naive if you think all of the multitudes of charges filed against minority celebrities are false. You CAN"T be that dense, you just can't!






Can you?

How is MJ obviously guilty? There was no physical evidence of any kind and the stories told by the witnesses were so vastly different that no one knows what the hell happened.

Theres hardly ever physical evidence in 'molestation' trials. Theres no DNA, no fingerprints, only the accuser and perhaps a witnesses testimony, which this case had plenty of. If this was ANYONE else, there would be no doubt. To think otherwise is just reckless of you. You are not only excusing the abuse that occured but enabling any future molestations. And if you're so confident, let your son or brother go spend the weekend at Neverland.

If you paid attention to the trial, you'd know that all the testimony corraberated itself. Jackson is CLEARLY guilty. This just comes down to, "Do we want another riot? Can we afford it?" I mean, how do you convict the most successful black man of all time?

Ok so...

1.) he has an obsession with young children, especially boys, and he says this himself, althought claiming it's not sexual

2.) he has an obsession with sleeping in the same beds as these young boys, claiming its not sexual

3.) he keeps a book full of nude photos of young boys, but he claims its not sexual

4.) he has been charged of child molestation

Honestly, how can you still give this man the benefit of the doubt?? Are you honestly going to ****ing sit there and say "Well it's art, blah blah" and deny that this man is a ****in pedophile?? Why must people be so damn stubborn and ignorant to logic??