Politician Calls Jackson a 'Pedophile' = Agree or Disagree???

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**VermilionButterfly**

The exact article reads:

In an attempt to raise awareness about the unrecognized efforts of U.S. teachers, police officers, veterans and volunteers, New York congressman Peter King decided to rip Michael Jackson apart in his latest YouTube video. King takes a swift jab at society for putting Jackson on a pedestal, calling the singer a "low life" and "child molester."

"There is nothing good about this guy. He may have been a good singer and did some dancing, but the bottom line is would you let your child or grandchild be in the same room as Michael Jackson?" King said.

The Republican congressman believes that the media is to blame for the "day in and day out" coverage of Jackson's death and is "too politically correct."

"Let's knock out the psycho babble. He was a pervert. He was a pedophile... No one wants to stand up and say, 'We don't need Michael Jackson,'" King said.

Adding that there are Americans dying every day in Afghanistan, King says our society should be spending more time focusing on the true heroes and less on Jackson. "What are we glorifying him for? ...We shouldn't be glorying some pervert," he said.

-------------

Agree or Disagree?

**LunaHound**

Sounds to me they are trying really hard to get into the last spot light from MJ , even after his death.

Despicable , bet you King 's own computer is filled with pedo porn

**dogma**

We also don't need Peter King.

I didn't like Micheal Jackson, but I hate moralistic politicians.

He is right about the amount of coverage of MJ's death vis a vis Iran/NK/our wars.

**Orkeosaurus**

I agree that Michael Jackson was given more spotlight than was probably necessary (I was more depressed when Billy Mays died

), but I think it's unfair to declare that he was - as a statement of fact - a pedophile.

I think it's certainly possible that he was, but I don't think that it was proven beyond reasonable doubt, in the courtroom or outside of it. Especially considering the severity of the charge.

**Typeline**

MJ is not a pedo, he wrote Thriller. That is all.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Hmmm. Lets see.

Michael Jackson accused of child molestation.

Michael Jackson is tried before a jury of 12 people.

Michael Jackson is found not guilty on the accusation of child molestation.

Ergo, Michael Jackson is not a Child Molestor. Sounds like someone just wanted to make doubly or even triply sure that those who voted for him really regret doing so.

Even the first one, where he settled out of court, never got as far as a Criminal Court Case due to a lack of evidence. As after all, it's pretty hard to come up with evidence when someone hasn't done the crime.

**VermilionButterfly**

I think he's being a tad bit messed up on some of the things he said about MJ, but he does prove a point when he speaks about the lack of coverage on wars and such.

But in a way I kind of felt bad for MJ when he was alive because many people said very hurtful things about him and really made fun of him and his children.

I saw some pics of him and his children and it kind of made me realize, "Hmm, maybe MJ isn't such a bad person after all.", he seemed to really love his kids though.

Whatever happened involving him and little kids is his issue... who knows it might of just been a group of greedy families wanting money from a rich celeb by wrongfully accusing him???

But I kinda think King went a tad bit far on what he said about him, that's just my opinion though.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Actually what King said is positively libellous, especially seeing as Jackson was completely cleared of any wrong doing. I sense a lawsuit coming to a certain knobend.

**Orkeosaurus**

It's only within the eyes of the law that Michael Jackson is innocent of the charges; the general public is under no obligation to accept the court's ruling as the truth themselves, nor does the ruling of the court become objective fact.

However, it's rare that the general public has studied the specifics of the charges as well as the court has. While there are exceptions (such as OJ Simpson) to the rule, I think that it is usually the court that is correct in manners such as this.

I don't think there's enough evidence against MJ to say that he was a child molester in spite of the court's ruling. As for libel, I think the rules are different concerning celebrities and other figures in the public eye concerning such matters, so I don't know that a case would be able to be raised against King here.

**LunaHound**

Politician should respect the law , and the system.

MJ was not found guilty . Yet King still opens his mouth.

How do they expect the people to trust the politicians when politicians have no respect for the system themselves?

No wonder people say politicians are dirty. does that mean King need to shut his dirty hole

**LuciusAR**

Sound like a petty, moralistic, little prick using the death of a celebrity to get a few headlines for himself.

He's best ignored.

**VermilionButterfly**

Well said LuciusAR.

**djphranq**

LuciusAR wrote:Sound like a petty, moralistic, little prick using the death of a celebrity to get a few headlines for himself.

He's best ignored.

I concur.

**Redbeard**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Hmmm. Lets see.

~~Michael Jackson~~ OJ Simpson accused of ~~child molestation~~ murder.

~~Michael Jackson~~ OJ Simpson is tried before a jury of 12 people.

~~Michael Jackson~~ OJ Simpson is found not guilty on the accusation of ~~child molestation~~ murder.

Ergo, ~~Michael Jackson~~ OJ Simpson is not a ~~Child Molestor~~ Murderer.

Don't you realize that rich people buy their way out of trouble?

I would not leave a child with that man, anymore than I would leave a child with a catholic priest. If I'm wrong, the child is denied an opportunity to meet a really weird man. If I'm right, the child is spared a lifetime of reliving the event. Risk/Reward - the risk isn't worth it.

**VermilionButterfly**

at Redbeard.

**grizgrin**

A little complicated on this one. I agree the politician is trying to grab press, and appears to be going for conservative appeal. However, much as I may be loathe to admit it; MJ was never convicted. Jury of our peers and all that. There were certainly appearances of guilt and pay-offs, but no convictions. The guy DOES make a point with his question of "Would you want your children alone with him?" Regardless of MJ's guilt or innocence, no I wouldn't.

I am no fan of MJ nor knee jerk conservatives (or knee-jerk anythign, really), but MJ was never convicted. Celebrities are always targets of people who think they can make a quick buck. And that dude is really more than weird enough for me to not want my kids around him, spending the night in his bed with him because he thinks it's "sweet" is WAAAAYYYYYY into "creepy" territory. MJ did many things, but one thing he certainly did NOT do was keep himself above and beyond suspicion in regards to his behavior. Things he admitted to doing were creepy at best.

**Emperors Faithful**

MJ was not convicted. Why do people continue to damn him, even in death?
If he was convicted then yes, but no, he was found not guilty right?

It does seem strange though that after years of damning MJ, the media suddenly turns and canonizes him.

I don't think anyone in the media really cares about the man, just the scandal (if it even existed).
It is sad that MJ may very well have been innocent (that's wat the court found him anyway) yet he was still damned by the rest of the nation.

**Kilkrazy**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Actually what King said is positively libellous, especially seeing as Jackson was completely cleared of any wrong doing. I sense a lawsuit coming to a certain knobend.

The dead cannot be libelled.

**Orkeosaurus**

Ah, doesn't it have be proven to negatively affect the person being libelled?

I guess that would make the dead immune. They're not getting deader.

**MasticatorDeelux**

+1 for the "He's a fething Pedo" side.

edit: And although he's most certainly dead, I (IANAL) believe the controller of his estate would have the ability to sue for libel charges. But then again what was said is an opinion, negative or not, and is not subject to libel laws. Freedom of speech can be a pain, no?

**thedarkside69**

I don't believe he was a pedo. It's possible he just was very friendly with kids, and it was perceived wrong and blown out of proportion.

**Orkeosaurus**

Here's an interesting one:

Wikipedia wrote:Claimant is incapable of further defamation–e.g., the claimant's position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff. Such a claimant could be said to be "libel-proof," since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an essential element for a libel claim. Essentially, the defense is that the person had such a bad reputation before the libel, that no further damage could possibly have been caused by the making of the statement. Examples of celebrities considered libel-proof include Paris Hilton, Michael Jackson, and O.J. Simpson.

**George Spiggott**

Also dead men don't sue.

**Morathi's Darkest Sin**

I don't think he was either, was he odd, immature, aye I think so, but I really distrust the media in these kinda proceedings.
Also I don't trust folks suing first, and not concerned about a guilty verdict for their child's sanity.

Although I take everything I read in the papers with a massive pinch of salt. I did spot a story in one of the broadsheets on Sunday which would throw a lot of doubt on the idea he was guilty.

From folks I've spoken to on the matter they are of the opinion that his 'paying' off of Jordan Chandler cemented his guilt in their eyes. Now this story's writer claimed he has seen cold hard evidence that the company who where insuring MJ at the time settled over MJ's and his lawyers heads. They wanted to fight them in court.

If that turns out to be true, I think it would really throw a spanner in the works of those shouting out that he was guilty.

Although to be honest as there is recorded evidence of chandler saying the following "If I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever...Michael's career will be over" I'm not so sure it was as open and shut a case as some folks think it is.

As to the would you leave your kids with him comment, thats just odd. As a father of two, I wouldn't leave them with anyone other than their grand parents, or my own siblings, I don't trust anyone outside the family, but that doesn't make him guilty of anything.

**sebster**

LunaHound wrote:Politician should respect the law , and the system.

MJ was not found guilty . Yet King still opens his mouth.

How do they expect the people to trust the politicians when politicians have no respect for the system themselves?

No wonder people say politicians are dirty. does that mean King need to shut his dirty hole

At first I thought the law is only a process and the politician (although moralistic and making a really stupid reference to 'PC gone maaaad') was allowed his own opinion. But you've made a really good point there, as a politician he has a greater duty, and yeah he should respect the legal decision.

Excellent point.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:MJ was not convicted. Why do people continue to damn him, even in death?
If he was convicted then yes, but no, he was found not guilty right?

The law is just a human process. It is not the great arbiter of truth, and while it is important that government and greater society accept the decision of the courts and let people get on with their lives, there is nothing saying the average citizen has to believe every legal decision. Indeed, it would an unhealthy society that did accept every legal decision.

I mean, yes MJ was found not guilty but when he was a alive would you have let your kids spend the night there?

**Orkeosaurus**

To be fair, there's a lot of space between "I don't think it can be factually said that he's a pedophile" and "I'll let my kids go over to his house to spend the night".

**sebster**

Orkeosaurus wrote:To be fair, there's a lot of space between "I don't think it can be factually said that he's a pedophile" and "I'll let my kids go over to his house to spend the night".

And there is a lot of ground between 'he was found not guilty' and 'he didn't do it and you shouldn't say he did'.

**garret**

I find this whole "even though he was found not guilty he still is" argument.
because if the same case happend to one of there reletives and they got of they would agree with the cour.
such a double standerd for a celebrity.
point is he didnt do it. he still slept in a bed that had little boys but he didnt "sleep" with them.

**Cheese Elemental**

Well...

I don't think he was a pedophile. He was very... eccentric in his later years, but I don't think he was that loony.

I didn't really pay attention to current affairs until recently, so I can't really offer an opinion on it. In primary school (that's ages 6-12, not sure what you Americans have), he was regarded as a kind of boogeyman amongst the older kids.

**Wolfstan**

OJ wasn't convicted, but how many believe he didn't do it?

MJ may not of been a full Pedo, but what he got up to shouldn't of been allowed, his people should of stopped him and given him a clip around the ear to make him stop.

As to the weirdo stuff, if it was legit, he should of had the balls to stand up in front of the media and explained himself. If after that they kept on writng false stuff about him he should of hit them with lawsuits.

As to the media converage, well society gets what it deserves. He was a singer, he only made money due to people buying his records, you remove that and he was nothing. As to all his screaming fans I think the world needs to give them all one big collective smack on the nose and told "pull yourself together, he's not the messiah".

Me? I liked his music, but I do have a life and there is nobody in the media that I'm in awe of, they are just people who entertain.