Sundance Will Not Pull Michael Jackson Child Abuse Doc ‘Leaving Neverland’ Amid Fan Protests

ILoveHIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
778
Points
0
"It has come to our attention that some of you may have received messages or social media posts from Michael Jackson fans who would like us to pull the screening of 'Leaving Neverland,'" a statement reads.

The Sundance Film Festival has issued a statement to its corporate partners notifying them it will not be removing the documentary “Leaving Neverland” from its official 2019 lineup. The latest documentary feature from Dan Reed, “Leaving Neverland” investigates allegations of sexual abuse and child molestation against Michael Jackson, told through the personal stories of two of Jackson’s alleged victims.

Sundance announced the film was joining the 2019 lineup on January 9.

In a statement to corporate partners, Sundance wrote, “It has come to our attention that some of you may have received messages or social media posts from Michael Jackson fans who would like us to pull the screening of ‘Leaving Neverland.’ Sundance Institute supports artists in enabling them to fully tell bold, independent stories, stories on topics which can be provocative or challenging. We look forward to audiences at the Festival seeing these films and judging the work for themselves, and discussing it afterwards.”

Sundance continued, “We don’t currently plan to comment publicly or engage in the discourse around ‘Leaving Neverland,’ and would recommend that you do the same. We plan to proceed with the screening as announced. If you do plan to participate in the conversation, we’d welcome the opportunity to collaborate on your messaging.”

“Leaving Neverland” has already been condemned by Michael Jackson’s official estate.
Following the news of the movie premiering at Sundance, the estate issued its own statement: “This is yet another lurid production in an outrageous and pathetic attempt to exploit and cash in on Michael Jackson…Wade Robson and James Safechuck have both testified under oath that Michael never did anything inappropriate toward them. This so called ‘documentary’ is just another rehash of dated and discredited allegations. It’s baffling why any credible filmmaker would involve himself with this project.”

HBO and Chanel 4 have already acquired distribution rights to “Leaving Neverland.” The former is set to debut the documentary on its network this spring.

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/01/s...oc-leaving-neverland-fan-protests-1202035204/
 
tenor.gif


giphy.gif


2CWq.gif
 
Why would they?

Honestly, petitions and outrage oftentimes do little to nothing. I want them to pull this documentary as much as anyone here, but other than the fan backlash, there's no reason for them to. It only serves as free promotion, truthfully.
 
No surprise there. Why would they pull it? At least this shows that they and their sponsors must have received enough emails and messages for them to comment like this. It shouldn’t stop us emailing them. Let’s keep getting the truth of this out there.
 
Guys, this statement is not to us, but to their sponsors, trying to smooth things over. They've heard us and now they are scared the sponsors will ditch them. Keep pushing the sponsors.
 
What I said in my tweet is pretty clear about it.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This is how I am stated and this is what Sundance will get from me! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Justice4MJ?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Justice4MJ</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/LeaveMJAlone?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#LeaveMJAlone</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BoycottSundance2019?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BoycottSundance2019</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BoycottHBO?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BoycottHBO</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BoycottLeavingNeverland?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BoycottLeavingNeverland</a> <a href="https://t.co/uiA0lzttgC">pic.twitter.com/uiA0lzttgC</a></p>&mdash; Jordan Tremblay (PoP) (@PrinceofPop8) <a href="https://twitter.com/PrinceofPop8/status/1085253094131355649?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 15, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
That is what we have to do. get the Sponsors. Send them all the data on these clowns to show what they are sponsoring. Who are the sponsors?
 
Maybe we can send the sponsors a statement, especially Netflix? Maybe they will do something. This documentary is based on false ''facts'' and deceives everyone.
 
Maybe we can send the sponsors a statement, especially Netflix? Maybe they will do something. This documentary is based on false ''facts'' and deceives everyone.

Do people not think that sponsors would not want to be seen to withdraw support from Sundance due to a film where someone is alleging child sexual abuse? We all know the allegations are bogus, but sponsors would not want to be seen to side against someone who is alleging abuse.
 
Maybe we can send the sponsors a statement, especially Netflix? Maybe they will do something. This documentary is based on false ''facts'' and deceives everyone.

We are already bombarding them with emails and messages on twitter. If we hit them where it hurts the most (pockets), claiming we will not buy their products if they sponsor the documentary, maybe they'll listen.

You can send automatic tweets and email here.
https://sites.google.com/site/mjsundancecampaign/
 
Is Netflix a sponsor of that festival? seriously? better not write or say anything because the more attention see netflix and television networks will be worse because they want to buy the documentary and put it on their platforms and channels, if they see that it generates a lot of attention they will get it because for them this is money, so please do not write to netflix because that would be the ruin
 
Last edited:
I just sent the below to press@google.com


Hello,

I am extremely disappointed to see that you are sponsoring the Sundance Film Festival. As I&#8217;m sure you aware they plan to screen an outrageous documentary of lies about the late Michael Jackson. It features a story by two discredited people whom are only making up stories for financial gain. These very two people have previously proclaimed Michael Jackson innocence and cannot be trusted.

If you do not drop your sponsorship of this event then I&#8217;m sure it will have huge negative repercussions on Youtube whom hosts millions of videos of Michael Jackson material, thereby generating massive revenue.
I&#8217;m sure I don&#8217;t have to remind you that Michael Jackson is one of the biggest Youtube stars. This documentary of lies could damage his reputation and therefore stop people viewing his performances and thereby your ad revenue.

It is very sad that despite overwhelming evidence of his innocence that lies persist and twisted people are trying to make money out of him, despite him being dead for 9 ½ years. I think YouTube owes it to Mr Jackson to preserve his legacy and the joy he brings to millions rather than help to destroy it.

Thankyou
Dean Ryan
0794 0047524
 
Lovepeace1;4237127 said:
Is Netflix a sponsor of that festival? seriously? better not write or say anything because the more attention see netflix and television networks will be worse because they want to buy the documentary and put it on their platforms and channels, if they see that it generates a lot of attention they will get it because for them this is money, so please do not write to netflix because that would be the ruin

Agree. We have to tread carefully here. At the moment there isn&#8217;t much publicity about this film, what we don&#8217;t want to do is draw more attention to it. It&#8217;s a fine line.
 
And everyone who is attending Sundance better remember if this doc is shown: THIS CAN HAPPEN TO YOU IN SOMEONE SHOWING A DOC ON THOSE CELEBS. Be careful in digging a ditch for someone, you may find yourself in one later.
 
What's so annoying about that statement is their attempt to take the moral high ground. We as fans, want more than anything for these allegations to be discussed and dissected on THIS type of scale. We're not asking for the documentary to be pulled because we want this whole saga brushed under the carpet, we're asking for it to be pulled because it's clearly a vehicle for these two to throw dirt and come out with a payday.

If either of these men have their allegations questioned AT ALL in this documentary it will be an extremely small percentage of the runtime and it will be immediately dismissed.
 
Interesting how they are not releasing the names of the so-called "accusers." Even though some articles that I have read are clearly calling out Robson and Safechuck.

In my opinion, the documentary maker(s) don't want folks to REMEMBER that Wade Robson testified during MJ's 2005 trial, that nothing happened and Michael did nothing to him. They are trying to keep that little fact as close to the vest as possible, but folks ain't stupid!!!!

Once the names are known for sure, publicly, they are going to have to explain why Robson changed his story. Why he lied on the witness stand, when he had EVERY opportunity to tell THIS story.

And as for Safechuck, why didn't he share his story during the trial. He had the perfect opportunity to also get up on that witness stand and tell his story, instead of filing a money claim after Michael was gone. Sneedon would have welcomed Safechuck with open arms!

Apparently, they are trying to keep folks from asking those questions for as long as possible. The media knows what time it is and that's why they are not doing a million back-to-back stories, in my opinion.
 
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/c...jackson-leaving-neverland-documentary-2438824


NEWS


Michael Jackson Leaving Neverland documentary and why we shouldn't be free to destroy the reputations of the dead
Even without evidence we are free to say whatever we want about those who have passed away - and that isn't right

SHARE
BY MIKE SMALLCOMBE
18:16, 18 JAN 2019UPDATED20:35, 18 JAN 2019

When anguished pop superstar Michael Jackson died some ten years ago there was hope in many quarters that he had found peace at last.

But even in death, scandal continues to torment him. First came the ongoing controversy over the legitimacy of three songs on a posthumous album.


Then, in May 2013, a choreographer who Jackson befriended in the late 1980s went on television to allege that he had been sexually abused by Jackson when he was a child.

The man, Wade Robson, had previously testified under oath in defence of Jackson in the 2005 child molestation trial, claiming Jackson had “never” touched him.


But when Jackson was no longer around to defend himself, Robson changed his mind, citing a repressed memory. He was later joined in his accusations by another young Jackson friend, James Safechuck.



Robson and Safechuck sued Michael Jackson's Estate and then the companies it controlled. But in December 2017 a judge dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that they had filed it too late.

The Michael Jackson Estate claimed it was “always about the money rather than a search for the truth".

But Robson and Safechuck weren’t done there. Last week, news broke that HBO and Channel 4 had produced a documentary accusing Jackson of sexually abusing pair of young boys.



Titled Leaving Neverland, the two-part film will debut at the famed Sundance Film Festival in Utah, USA, later this month and then air on the respective networks this spring.

“Two boys, now in their 30s, tell the story of how they were sexually abused by Jackson, and how they came to terms with it years later,” the synopsis said.

Anyone reading this who has no knowledge of these accusers and their case would assume this abuse happened as a matter of fact.



But there is zero evidence that it did, these are merely claims.

Jackson can’t defend himself and his estate and family possess no powers to stop the documentary from being released.

Everything under the sun can be said by the media about dead individuals like Jackson and there is nothing anyone can do about it.


This is what it's like to spend Christmas on Universal Credit in Cornwall



So why is it that we are free to destroy the reputations of those who are no longer with us?

Under law in the UK and the US, the dead cannot be defamed. This is because the view is that reputation is a personal right which ceases to exist when a person dies and it can no longer be damaged.

Defamation is also deemed to be a personal legal action which cannot be assigned or brought on someone’s behalf.



But while Jackson might be dead there’s still a huge amount at stake.

Most importantly the impact of such heinous allegations on his children, who will be profoundly affected by more assertions that their father was a child abuser.

Jackson’s reputation around the globe also made a steady recovery since that damaging trial in 2005 which saw him acquitted of all charges.


When Jackson announced his mega comeback in early 2009 he was viewed as the King of Pop once more and his death only enhanced that notion further. Now people speak more of Jackson’s music and legacy than the circus that was his personal life.

But this documentary will undo much of that progress.

So is there any hope for the family? As relatives of Jackson do they have any rights?


Interestingly, when ruling on a case in 2014 ( Putitstin v Ukraine ) in which the applicant complained that his dead father had been defamed in an article, the European Court of Human Rights accepted that the reputation of a deceased member of a person’s family may come within the scope of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This is because the reputation may, in certain circumstances, affect a living relative’s right to respect for a private and family life.

In the case of Putitstin v Ukraine the applicant lost the case on the grounds that the impact on him was very little.

Inside the eerie derelict Newquay hotel that has been left to crumble for more than a decade



While rejecting the case the court said that a claim on the basis of breaching a person’s rights to a private and family life could have succeeded.

But although the European Court has considered a number of cases that related to the reputations of deceased individuals, as yet, none have succeeded.

I can hear the chorus of cries - what about Jimmy Savile? Yes, it was only in death that his horrific crimes were truly uncovered and that his victims felt able to come forward.



Michael Jackson and his father Joe wave to fans as they exit the court after hearing the jury declare Not Guilty on all counts in the child molestation trial at the Santa Barbara County Courthouse on June 13, 2005(Image: Win McNamee/Getty Images)


But there’s a marked difference.

After Savile’s death police launched a criminal investigation into allegations of child sex abuse spanning six decades.

Officers pursued more than 400 lines of inquiry based on the testimony of 300 potential victims from 14 police forces across the UK.

If the authorities were investigating Jackson post-death, if there was evidence of wrongdoing this would be an entirely different scenario. There could be no complaints.


But the media have a responsibility to ensure that what is published or broadcast is true.

Without the evidence how can HBO and Channel 4 be sure that Robson and Safechuck were indeed abused?

Of course the grievances of relatives, and fans in this case, should not have an impact on the uncovering of uncomfortable truths through investigative journalism.

But therein lies the problem - no investigative journalism or police investigation has uncovered any wrongdoing by Jackson.

So even in the absence of evidence, the media has the power to make the world believe that people like Jackson are sinister characters.

That doesn’t sit right with me.

Reporter and author Mike Smallcombe has written about Michael Jackson for several years, including the biography Making Michael.

MORE ON
CrimeCourtsPeople
© 2019 Local World
 
Last edited:
Back
Top