What do we do about Michael Jackson?

[Barrister]

So, the Simpsons are pulling the Michael Jackson episode from distribution - the one where Jackson plays the voice of a white mental patient who comes home with Homer from the mental hospital.

https://slate.com/culture/2019/03/michael-jackson-simpsons-episode-featuring-singers-voice-to-be-pulled-from-circulation.html

All of this is a result of a documentary entitled Leaving Neverland, which interviews in depth two men who were repeatedly sexually molested by Jackson as young boys.  Jackson of course was tried and acquitted on very similar charges back in the 90s.

I've seen and heard online discussions about whether it is right to still listen to Jackson's music, whether wedding DJs should play his music, that kind of thing.

So what say you Languish?  Is it right to still listen to Jackson's music?  Should radio stations stop playing his songs?  Or do you still doubt that Jackson was a serial sexual abuser?

[The Brain]

Sorry, I'm not gonna give up the Naked Gun movies.

[Valmy]

I guess I feel differently about it now that he is dead. Any attempt to make him pay for his misdeeds or whatever is now pointless. So why not enjoy his music? What actual impact is that having?

[Tonitrus]

Is it too much of a leap to say we should remove/hide any kind of media (e.g. books) done by anyone who did something naughty?

Presumably this would cut out the inputs of anyone involved in killing/causing the death of people in a way that we don't now approve of.

Or maybe that would be taking things too far?

[Eddie Teach]

I don't know if he did it or not. Lots of people who knew him swear it couldn't possibly be true.

At any rate, it doesn't affect his music imo.

[Barrister]

Is it too much of a leap to say we should remove/hide any kind of media (e.g. books) done by anyone who did something naughty?

Presumably this would cut out the inputs of anyone involved in killing/causing the death of people in a way that we don't now approve of.

Or maybe that would be taking things too far?

Well, the argument is that Jackson did far more than "do something naughty".  Repeated sexual molestation of children is pretty bad.

There certainly is a line I would suggest.  John Wayne Gacy painted a whole lot of picture both before and after his arrest - and such pictures now sell for thousands of dollars.  BUt I would never, ever buy one of them.  Similarly Hitler was famously an artist, and his paintings similarly sell quite well.

But on which side of the line is Billie Jean?

[Tonitrus]

Well, the argument is that Jackson did far more than "do something naughty".  Repeated sexual molestation of children is pretty bad.

Obviously "something naughty" was intended to be sarcastically euphemistic.

But there are plenty of older, celebrated literary works by people that, when we really look at it from a modern sense, were very nasty people who were direct/indirect actors in the deaths of many. 

But we often overlook all that in a historical kind of inverse of "too soon?" idea.

[Barrister]

Well, the argument is that Jackson did far more than "do something naughty".  Repeated sexual molestation of children is pretty bad.

Obviously "something naughty" was intended to be sarcastically euphemistic.

But there are plenty of older, celebrated literary works by people that, when we really look at it from a modern sense, were very nasty people who were direct/indirect actors in the deaths of many. 

But we often overlook all that in a historical kind of inverse of "too soon?" idea.

Yup - one I've seen is that Charles Dickens tried to have his wife and the mother of his 10 kids committed to an insane asylum so he could shack up with some 19 year old.

[Valmy]

Is it too much of a leap to say we should remove/hide any kind of media (e.g. books) done by anyone who did something naughty?

Presumably this would cut out the inputs of anyone involved in killing/causing the death of people in a way that we don't now approve of.

Or maybe that would be taking things too far?

Well, the argument is that Jackson did far more than "do something naughty".  Repeated sexual molestation of children is pretty bad.

There certainly is a line I would suggest.  John Wayne Gacy painted a whole lot of picture both before and after his arrest - and such pictures now sell for thousands of dollars.  BUt I would never, ever buy one of them.  Similarly Hitler was famously an artist, and his paintings similarly sell quite well.

But on which side of the line is Billie Jean?

But none of those people can profit or benefit from their art though. They are dead. So why shouldn't the world benefit from their artistic contributions even if they were evil people in life?

[The Brain]

Is it too much of a leap to say we should remove/hide any kind of media (e.g. books) done by anyone who did something naughty?

Presumably this would cut out the inputs of anyone involved in killing/causing the death of people in a way that we don't now approve of.

Or maybe that would be taking things too far?

Well, the argument is that Jackson did far more than "do something naughty".  Repeated sexual molestation of children is pretty bad.

There certainly is a line I would suggest.  John Wayne Gacy painted a whole lot of picture both before and after his arrest - and such pictures now sell for thousands of dollars.  BUt I would never, ever buy one of them.  Similarly Hitler was famously an artist, and his paintings similarly sell quite well.

But on which side of the line is Billie Jean?

But none of those people can profit or benefit from their art though. They are dead. So why shouldn't the world benefit from their artistic contributions even if they were evil people in life?

Forget it, Valmy. It's Chinatown.

[Threviel]

Beethoven was a famous bastard for example, the "national" anthem of the EU is his.

A documentary without any proof is not cause enough for a damnatio memoriae in my mind. Now Jacksons music was crap and shouldn't be listened to anyhow, but that's beside the point.

[Barrister]

Beethoven was a famous bastard for example, the "national" anthem of the EU is his.

A documentary without any proof is not cause enough for a damnatio memoriae in my mind. Now Jacksons music was crap and shouldn't be listened to anyhow, but that's beside the point.

How much more proof do you need than the detailed statements of two of Jackson's victims?

Personally, I always believed he was a paedophile since the mid-90s trial.

[The Brain]

I think all material from the moon landings should be locked away somewhere. Enjoying the work of an SS officer is unacceptable.

[Valmy]

Beethoven was a famous bastard for example, the "national" anthem of the EU is his.

If having an unpleasant personality was enough then it would be a wonder we are left with any art at all.

[Threviel]

Beethoven was a famous bastard for example, the "national" anthem of the EU is his.

A documentary without any proof is not cause enough for a damnatio memoriae in my mind. Now Jacksons music was crap and shouldn't be listened to anyhow, but that's beside the point.

How much more proof do you need than the detailed statements of two of Jackson's victims?

Personally, I always believed he was a paedophile since the mid-90s trial.

Filtered through the legal system with a conviction in the end, well, then two witnesses is plenty.

Filtered through a documentary two witnesses mean nothing. Next documentary will have plenty of witnesses to the contrary. They are not building a case, they are making a TV show.