MJ has been banned from Radio ...

Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average.
(2 votes)
Page 2 of 9 First 12345 ... Last
Results 26 to 50 of 201

  1. Post
    #26
    Skorky wrote:
    Several accusers over many years, at least one corroborating witness within the household, the admission that he was actually literally sleeping with many boys, the fact that he was a ****ing weird **** with an obvious obsession with children - that's all enough for me, to be honest.
    Slept in same bed? Sure. It is weird, but parents new and didnt care. But zero proof it was anything more than that. These guys are known to lie and just after a pay day. People do a lot less for money.

  2. Post
    #27
    darkness_nz wrote:
    Thats a good question. I've had many discussions with the Mrs about it. Can you separate the art from the artist themselves, without it feeling tainted.

    Salvadore Dali was a great artist, but a twisted individual.
    Orson Scott Card was a great author, but a raging bigot(homophobe i think).
    The list goes on really.
    I was talking to my wife today about Van Goth. He cut off his ear. That's pretty deranged. So yeah, can you just love the art they create, but not the artist? is the real question. I do still like many of MJs songs, for example.

  3. Post
    #28
    ClavulanateV2 wrote:
    Can I enjoy his music and still think he was a piece if garbage or is it all or nothing or something
    Yeah I'm really torn on this he was my idol growing up and I still love his music to this day so not sure how to feel.

  4. Post
    #29
    Bloodline wrote:
    Slept in same bed? Sure. It is weird, but parents new and didnt care. But zero proof it was anything more than that. These guys are known to lie and just after a pay day. People do a lot less for money.
    Aside from during the trials (and if you can't figure out why a kid, or a young adult male, might not want to talk about how they were molested/might get convinced by someone they loved not to talk about it, then I don't know what to say), and all the craziness surrounding them, what else have they lied about?

    And I mean... if they were known to be lying before... then that means that they were molested, doesn't it?

  5. Post
    #30
    Will anything both tangible and positive come from banning the music? I don't think so.

  6. Post
    #31
    There is no evidence but there's been payouts after the court cases yeah? Were they paid to avoid exposing the truth? Were further claimants just in it for the payout? Who really knows. There's no real evidence either way. I'm leaning on the side of the claim that he was a fiddler.

  7. Post
    #32
    He was found not guilty in court and is no longer alive to respond to the latest claims. I'm interested in the radio stations justification for continuing to play music by others who have actually been found guilty and convicted, in light of this decision. Admittedly haven't seen the documentary yet but I understand the boys have changed their story a number of times, whatever that may mean.

  8. Post
    #33
    Skorky wrote:
    Nah, **** MJ. He was obviously a pedophile. There's no way that on three separate occasions, four different boys are just going to make up that he abused them. Why the **** would more come out of the woodwork and just be like "yeah nah, they'll believe us now and we'll get heaps of money!"? Absurd.

    It's pretty easy to see why they all wouldn't just come forward to begin with, especially if you remember the hordes of rabid fans shitting on the accusers that first came forward, if you consider what MJ was like, the love and support that he showed these kids and their families before he started molesting them. The whole thing would be terrifying, then you have his mob going to each of his victims and their families and pressuring them to support MJ through each trial. Yeah, nah. He was real ****ed up.

    I mean, what more ****ing evidence do you want, so many years on? I don't expect that any real lawsuit will be successful at this point, but who knows.

    I already believed it, this hammers the nail further in, but watch the documentary.
    this tbh

  9. Post
    #34
    a bit over the top if u ask me

  10. Post
    #35
    Pxndx wrote:
    What about The Jackson 5?
    Can be broadcast, but only with any bits done by MJ bleeped out.

  11. Post
    #36
    i.e.awesome wrote:
    They should cancel Chris Brown.
    Yeah if they are going to stop playing songs then surely Chris Brown should be at the top of the list

  12. Post
    #37
    Does Gary Glitter still get played on any radio station? Did anyone even listen to him to begin with?

  13. Post
    #38
    Does anyone think banning entertainment media X or Y makes a scrap of difference as far as stopping crimes? I don't.

  14. Post
    #39
    Monolith wrote:
    Does anyone think banning entertainment media X or Y makes a scrap of difference as far as stopping crimes? I don't.
    Nah but I guess the argument would be making a stance that stops them/their estate profiting (like it matters anyway with someone as big as MJ).

    The better solution would be to give the profits to the victims or something I guess, although the problem here is MJ was tried and found innocent... so a re-examination of his case would be needed I guess.

  15. Post
    #40
    ClavulanateV2 wrote:
    Nah but I guess the argument would be making a stance that stops them/their estate profiting (like it matters anyway with someone as big as MJ).

    The better solution would be to give the profits to the victims or something I guess, although the problem here is MJ was tried and found innocent... so a re-examination of his case would be needed I guess.
    I feel like it's worth mentioning there can be a difference between 'innocent' and 'not guilty'.

  16. Post
    #41
    DW wrote:
    I feel like it's worth mentioning there can be a difference between 'innocent' and 'not guilty'.
    oh was he found not guilty? Similar to David Bain? I just assumed he was found innocent tbh

  17. Post
    #42
    ClavulanateV2 wrote:
    so a re-examination of his case would be needed I guess.
    I'm no lawyer and I could be wrong but I would have thought If substantial new evidence had come to light that would be the first course of action.

    I am skeptical given this and how apparently expedient and effective it seems to be for folks to ruin others in the court of public opinion. Media companies banning music on that basis does nothing to discredit that view in my opinion.

  18. Post
    #43
    Annie are you ok?

  19. Post
    #44
    Mancubus wrote:
    Annie are you ok?
    Are you okay Annie?

  20. Post
    #45
    it turns out Annie wasn't okay, and she had actually been repeatedly sexually assaulted by Michael Jackson. She later turned to a life of alcohol & drugs before taking her life at 37 after numerous stints in psychiatric wards.

    RIP Annie

  21. Post
    #46
    Ramza wrote:
    What more evidence could I want? enough to actually convict him in a court of law would be a nice start. Guilty until proven innocent is not how society is supposed to work. If it was ever actually proven then I would immediately change my stance.
    OJ walked like a boss.

    Trump's still the President

    Would you be OK with your kids sharing a bed with MJ?

    Still a fan of the US justice system?

  22. Post
    #47
    Frederick James wrote:
    Agree with this - they previously testified, under oath, that he never touched them or did anything inappropriate.

    I'm not a massive MJ fan, but the poor prick is dead, can't defend himself, so it seems like a total beat-up to me. I've emailed MediaWorks and said it's bullshit, that they should re-instate his music.
    I bet if I paid you a couple of thousand you'd testify to anything I suggested.

    And those were kids who's parents were enablers.

  23. Post
    #48
    Meh don't listen to radio for music, I got my own music and if I want to listen to MJ, i'll just listen it on my own player.

    If MJ is a fiddler do you think he did it to his own kids? maybe they'll come out one day and say something.

  24. Post
    #49
    Anyone catch the R Kelly interview? I thought his reaction seemed real but I don't really know much about the guy.

    What a world we live in.

  25. Post
    #50