This thread was in the Entertainment section of GagaDaily(which I've linked to before):
http://gagadaily.com/index.php?showtopic=51939
http://gagadaily.com/index.php?showtopic=51939
This thread was in the Entertainment section of GagaDaily(which I've linked to before):
http://gagadaily.com/index.php?showtopic=51939
^ Exactly. If those items were illegal to own, he would have been charged with it and hauled off to jail. Are any of those idiots on the Gaga board capable of realizing that???
The real scary thing is that someone throws in a claim ("MJ had child porn and here is the proof") and people start parroting it without even checking it out if it's really so. I have seen this document circulating on various forums in the past weeks and everyone is just parroting "MJ had child porn" without having any actual knowledge about what these books really are, the context they were found in etc. It's really scary how easy it is to manipulate and lead people astray with such inflammatory things. I guess the psychology behind lynch mobs must have been something similar. Humans did not change much ever since...
Actually, not even Sneddon and the prosecution claimed any of these were child porn or illegal in any way, because they knew full well none of it was. If you look at the way how the prosecution described them in their document where they detail this material, every one of them is described as NOT containing anything illegal. So even the prosecution acknowledged that. The reasoning behind their confiscating and introducing them was that they claimed these could be used as "grooming material" - even though none of the kids ever claimed to have seen any of these books (the Arvizos only made allegation about MJ showing them porn magazines, not any of these books). In reality they just tried to use it as inflammatory material to try to prejudice the conservative Jury against MJ, in the absence of real evidence against him. And someone apparently just found this prosecution motion (which is, BTW, obviously worded in biased way by Sneddon) and decided to use it once again as inflammatory material to smear Michael - now appealing to people's ignorance about what these books really are.
I checked and Glitter was sentenced just 4 months in prison for possessing child pornography and in Cambodia from 2006-2009 for molesting 10 and 11 year old girls but if he had raped them he'd had been executed.
Pretty soft sentence for child pornography if you ask me.
^^Molesting implies touching sexually and rape is forcing penetration violently or not but when it's not consensual, is rape.
I forgot to add, if the minor consents having intercourse, that's called statutory rape.
The real scary thing is that someone throws in a claim ("MJ had child porn and here is the proof") and people start parroting it without even checking it out if it's really so. I have seen this document circulating on various forums in the past weeks and everyone is just parroting "MJ had child porn" without having any actual knowledge about what these books really are, the context they were found in etc. It's really scary how easy it is to manipulate and lead people astray with such inflammatory things. I guess the psychology behind lynch mobs must have been something similar. Humans did not change much ever since...
The newspapers were entitled to report the information which they had received. In doing so, they had made clear that the reported allegations were not new, in the sense that law enforcement authorities had been notified of them already, and that Mr Jackson was ultimately acquitted of the allegations which he faced in 2005; in two of the reports, it was specifically stated that before Mr Jackson’s 2005 trial, the Santa Barbara District Attorney had reviewed the claims in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) file, and had declined to refer them to the California State prosecutor.