The molestation aside, I was hoping he would at least be punished for his baby-dangling stunt. That in itself showed he's pretty messed up and should've at least been ordered by the court to go into a mental ward for a few weeks.

Because thats how America has been conditioned to respond, Raoul, regarding celebrity charges. I find it ridiculous and insulting as an American.


My defense? "You know me! I was on TV, so I'm obviously innocent!"



God I'm embarrassed for America.

Not guilty on all accounts!

OH, wait...

You guys are still arguing.

Er, I think you're the one who didn't pay attention to the trial because the prosecution could not get coraberating stories from any of their witnesses. Their "star" witness (the kid's mother) was on a tape that contradicted her testimony in court. Witnesses changed their sotires so many times, there's no telling what really happened.

Now, you have to note, that's my opinion regarding the trial itself, not my personal opinion on MJ.

Let's fix your logic a bit.

1) there is nothing inherantly wrong with such an obsession.
2) the only dodgy area in my mind, can maybe be explained away with the screwed up mind stuff, and if it genuinely wasn't sexual then it's more (but not objectively) acceptable.
3) You didn't say this in the post, but I should clarify that such a book is not pornographic and the possession of such a book would be expected for someone with the obsession mentioned in (1).
4) This is not relevent, this is a conclusion and not a premise. He was charged with child molestation because of 1,2 and 3. Also, Michael Jackson is a very easy target for parents wanting to make money at his expense.

Why is the book not inherantly pornographic?
Basically, pornography is produced with an intention to cause sexual arousal. I think in a box in my house somewhere there's a small bronze statue of a naked boy, it's quite clearly not pornographic but rather art. If the book was produced to demonstrate the "beauty" of the naked child body, then it's not pornography.

Yeah, that was pretty stupid.

And I think he should go to jail. Sleeping with young boys isn't normal.

You see..I believe like most that OJ did it. But the difference between me, and rudder and SithLord and all the other racist [word] on this planet is, I won't fight the system. In our court of law he is innocent, and because of what was displayed within the boundaries of that system, he is free. Ya'll believe its cause he is a black celeb. Black people getting it easy. Like always. Picking the cotton was easy. Taking beatens for no ****ing reason was easy. You guys have no idea. Maybe thats why 65% of the prisons are full of blacks. Cause they all get off. You guys make me sick.

I sort of agree with Ubuu in the fact that you guys should stop making excuses for why he got off. Seriously, it's done, it may suck you may think that he did it, but there's nothing that can be done about it, and like Ubuu said, the comments you guys have made has just made you seem racist and closed-minded.

Are you being sarcastic? If not...

Did YOU pick cotton? Did YOU get beatings for no reason? I didn't think so. It's like I don't see jews walking around saying 'Oh! you don't know what its like! The gas! The flames!' I hate it when people bring up things from hundreds of years ago to back themselves up. They make it sounds like it's happening to them this very day. My people were slaves for hundreds of years blah blah blah! I mean serious. I have a friend who is black and he himself finds it sickening that some black people still bring up slavery as a defense in arguments. Put the race card away and how about we continue the conversation at hand and you and SithLord can battle out in PM's. Geeze.

I hate to bring out this moot point... but people still do that.. cause you know there still are holocaust survivors.

No I meant like young jewish teenagers or just jewish people that weren't in the holocaust.

Ah okay. Just checking


Anyway guys- Please calm this debate down a little bit. Try to be mature rather than harsh.

How do you guys know how I feel?! Have you ever had your empire defeated by that prick Alexander the Great? Or how about being invaded by MONGOLS!!!! Dudes, you so have nooo idea, seriously.

Seriously.

I think 99% of us think it's because he was a celebrity. I should use Robert Blake as a possible celeb example instead; we all know he had some hand in that woman's death. But hey, he has money and power, right?

Stop making all these statements Ubuu. You are sounding no better than your antagonists.

They do. It's called Israel. Except they do it from thousands of years ago.

Still calling me racist? Tell me, if I'm racist, how is that you are the one being far more disrespectful and hot-headed than anyone in this thread? Surely if I was racist as you claim I would have made some sort of personal attack to you.

Look, the court system isn't perfect. Wealth can be a factor. Minority status can be a factor. Celebrity status can be a factor. There is a reason why some suspects are taken to court elsewhere for trial because of some kind of status. Several jurors in the OJ's case admitted to racial bias -- and not just one way but both. I believe at least one of the three was a factor in MJ's case and I addressed that in my original post. Maybe not the most direct way, but I did. I state most of my views and opinions in the same manner. And so it turns out my NAACP comment was overboard and I apologize.

I assure you I am in no way racist.

You never said that before.

You said:



I am hardly a rash person. Had you elborated, I would have been perfectly fine. You lack of backing up your claim was getting increasling disturbing.

And, ohh please SAJN, I am sick and tired of people saying "Did you go through it, did it? Nooo nooo"

Of course I didn't, but are we all so naive to not acknowledge it was wrong?

Ok so he's not a pedophile, he simply has an obsession with young naked boys?

A bronze statue of a naked boy is not the same as a book full of naked pictures of boys. Sure the photos may appear tasteful, but it's still MEANT FOR AROUSAL. You can find alot of porn that appears tasteful, but it's still meant to arrouse the viewer. IMO your defense is just ludicrous. It seems like you are clutching at any straw possible to defend this man. Why can't you at least ****ing admit that he possibly is a pedophile that rapes young boys. I mean you even said "THis can maybbbe be explained away by such and such" You aren't looking for the logical explanation, you are merely looking for any scenario, no matter how far fetched. Sure, he has an obsession with little boys, sure he keeps child porn, but it could possibly have been not sexual whatsoever?? Give me a break.

You could finish the sentencE? Had to trail off with blah blah? Are you that disrespectful?

Please tell me where I played the race card? This whole thread, I have been stating that these people did NOT get by using the race card. Using the race card is when you use your race to help you out of trouble. OJ being black HURT him. The whole time, black people felt he didnt do it, and whites thought he did. Everyone knew that. The nation was divided at that time. IT HURT HIM in the eyes of the people who own all the CEO jobs, all the people who give out jobs. He's role certainly did not hurt things, but I am glad to say no one really gives a rats *** about OJ anymore.

I hardly play the race card, and I work for everything I have. You are a stuck up kid in suburban farmland who knows **** about being around people that are different then you. To you, reflecting on someones ancestor bad past is "playing the race card". Geez.

There is alot of beauty in the body, at nearly all ages (Old people are hideous).

Not everything thats related to OMG NUDITY is meant to OMG arrouse people.

Thats narrowminded thinking.

Thanks for the comic relief Rob?

wait a minute, let me understand this. The difference between you and racists is that they fight the system and you don't? So if a black man gets wrongly acquitted, you won't challenge that? So I guess if a black man gets wrongly convicted, you won't challenge that either? And were the ones that are somehow screwed up? Sorry if we like a little thing called justice. Just because some black people has been mistreated doesn't mean others should get off on murder.

I try?

No really.

I'm tired of this "OMG IT'S NUDITY! IT IST FOR AROUSEL!"

No.

Hummanities obession with nudity runs just a tad deeper than that.

The fact that he's more or less stating that a bronze medium nude boy isn't for arousel and a photo medium nude boy is.... well, it's downright silly.

Are you kidding???? A bronze statue is one thing, An album of PHOTOGRAPHS OF NAKED BOYS is completely ****in different!!! How can you not see that? A bronze statue is completely artistic. It's not even realistic. How could one get aroused off something like that? Photographs are completely different. If you don't get that, I'm just gonna back out now because argueing with a complete idiot is just useless.

So wait now, photography isn't artistic?

And thats all I need to do to debunk your argument.


PS, there are lots of photo albums loaded with nothing but nude pictures of people of all ages.

Just because you're narrowminded enough to believe that because it's a photograph it's meant for arousel, doesn't mean it is. Infact, thats pretty silly logic.

Photography can be artistic. That doesn't change the fact that it is a direct representation of what you see. Photographs of nude boys can be art. Photographs of nude boys in a pedophile's house is not art, and thats pretty ****in obvious to anyone with a half a brain. But clearly you have no such thing so I will not waste my breath any longer.

So basically my position is this: could it possibly be considered art? maybe. is it likely that it wasnt meant for sexual purposes? extremely doubtful.

I get your point. But if repeated time after time, appeal after appeal, and you get no where..you have to stop somewhere. But then again, if I were the family it would be a different feeling. Your point has been taken.



Dont put words in the mouth. Thanks.

Except the guy's not a pedophile. Get over it.

...thanks for clearing that up.

Honestly, you don't ****in know whether he's a pedophile or not, and from what i can see it definitly seems like he is one. Why are you so convinced otherwise? Just because hes michael jackson? If this was a normal man he would have been in jail by now.

Neither do you. Quit acting like he's a serial rapist.

Thanks for clearing up why he's a pedophile, too. I mean this:

That just opened my eyes. I guess you're right, he really is a kiddie-banger.

I was not definitively stating either way. I was simply saying that it really seems like he's guilty and that people are taking it easy on him cus hes michael jackson. I am not discouting the possibility that he is innocent, I just think its just much less likely.

So how long till he's found guilty in a civil court of the same crime?

We can't say that he's a pedophile and know it's 100% factual. That's how it works in criminal cases. You have to find beyond any reasonable doubt that a person is guilty. The defense was able to create enough reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors that Jackson was not convicted. That, and the prosecution didn't exactly put together a very good case by any means.

It's a real shame no one is actually reading this because most of you are too blinded by your emotions to understand what happened beyond "OMG! He wasn't convicted!!!!!!".

I realize all this, and I'm simply stating my person opinion. I can see why he wasn't convicted in a court of law, but I really can't see how so many people think hes completely innocent.

Jackson's troubles are far from over. Even though he was acquited, he has big money problems, and soon he will be out of money, if he isn't already. His cashflow says a lot to me-- he spends millions more than he takes in, and he has few real assets (the rights to the beatles music being one of them).

Even though a jury didn't find him guilty, it doesn't mean that he didn't do it. His career (or what's left of it) is going to take a major hit with this, and it will be harder for him to raise money from concerts to pay his debts.

In terms of bringing him down, his cashflow will succeed where the courts have failed.

The issue isn't whether Jackson is sexually attracted to young boys.

You're (mostly) all sexually attracted to women. Does that make you all rapists? No. Does it mean you could be rapists? Possibly. Does that warrant arresting all of you on suspicion of rape? Of course not.

The exact same thing applies to sexual attraction to children. It's perfectly possible for someone to be sexually attracted to children, and not abuse children (in the same way that you're sexually attracted to women, yet don't abuse them).
The existence of the nude boys could well show that Jackson was relieving his sexual urges without abusing the children around him.

Yes, you may well think that being sexually attracted to children is somehow 'creepy' and 'weird', the exact same view of homosexuals 50 years ago, but being 'creepy' and being 'weird' isn't illegal. Being sexually attracted to children isn't illegal. Masturbating to child pornography isn't illegal.

The issue was over whether Michael Jackson sexually abused children in his care. Through the complete lack of any physical evidence showing that he did, any DNA or semen or blood samples, it's fairly conclusive that there's nothing against him.

You're all making this into "aaaaaaah! Michael Jackson is NOT LIKE US! BURN IT! BURN IT NOW!!". You cannot 'ban' a sexuality, we've tried that before.

No, he's not 'normal'. And if I had that sort of money (that he had), I certainly wouldn't be 'normal' either given the choice. Luckily for me, not being normal isn't illegal. (and luckily for you, I have no prospects of ever being particularly rich).

I think it was stated that he was already in major debt.

Wow, I'm glad you have these amazing powers that let you see things that never happened.

A few years back on BBC1 (terrestrial tv in britland, anyone can get it) there was a TV series called "The Human Body" (or something along those lines.

It was aired at 9pm and was aimed at all audiences.

The intro sequence was set in a forest and consisted of a camera slowly panning past nude people from babies to the elderly. I think there was supposed to be one person for every age up to 100.

This was all done in a tasteful manner and was obviously photorealistic (since it was video footage).

Anybody who tries to argue that this is TV series was pornographic is clearly utterly clueless.

So on the same note, anyone who tries to argue that photorealistic depictions of nude people (babies, kids, adults, whatever) is automatically pornographic is also utterly clueless.

Only... you're forgetting that Michael isn't black anymore. Hell, he's whiter than me.