MJ and his hair

[SmoothCriminal1984]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2012000549777129734

SO thats the wig mj wore for LWMJ??

 

[innuendo141]

This feels like revealing how a magic trick was done.

Also, that wound looks so so much worse than I ever imagined.

 

[someplace_else]

The people harassing Karen on Twitter about what's appropriate to share are mentally ill.

Of course you should never harass anyone...but I still feel, sometimes she shares too much. I am often asking myself "should she really do that?"

 

[MsAshley]

Of course you should never harass anyone...but I still feel, sometimes she shares too much. I am often asking myself "should she really do that?"

I see no problem with what she has shared. It indicates, to me, that people have too much of a parasocial fixation with Michael.

 

[innuendo141]

I see no problem with what she has shared. It indicates, to me, that people have too much of a parasocial fixation with Michael.

This feels a little delicate for a non-family member to share, IMO. When you consider MJ as a person, I'd hate if someone shared this about a family member without my consent or approval. There are a lot of people who think that no unreleased song should ever see the light of day because they did not get MJ's seal of approval. I very much doubt he would have approved the release of pics of his burn scar and the wigs he wore without publicly disclosing.

I'm still in shock from his wound.

 

[MsAshley]

This feels a little delicate for a non-family member to share, IMO. When you consider MJ as a person, I'd hate if someone shared this about a family member without my consent or approval. There are a lot of people who think that no unreleased song should ever see the light of day because they did not get MJ's seal of approval. I very much doubt he would have approved the release of pics of his burn scar and the wigs he wore without publicly disclosing.

I'm still in shock from his wound.

This mentality is entirely based in irrational feelings. Oh nooooo, not wigs he wore, oh the humanity!! The only people that care about this are being overzealous. It does not matter in the least. I didn't see the burn scar, but I doubt it's worse than what is already public. I cruised through her account, but didn't see anything beyond a molding for the scar. Would like to see it, personally.

 

[someplace_else]

This feels a little delicate for a non-family member to share, IMO. When you consider MJ as a person, I'd hate if someone shared this about a family member without my consent or approval. There are a lot of people who think that no unreleased song should ever see the light of day because they did not get MJ's seal of approval. I very much doubt he would have approved the release of pics of his burn scar and the wigs he wore without publicly disclosing.

I'm still in shock from his wound.

I agree...it just feels wrong to me. But personal opinion

 

[innuendo141]

This mentality is entirely based in irrational feelings. Oh nooooo, not wigs he wore, oh the humanity!! The only people that care about this are being overzealous. It does not matter in the least. I didn't see the burn scar, but I doubt it's worse than what is already public. I cruised through her account, but didn't see anything beyond a molding for the scar. Would like to see it, personally.

We can agree to disagree then.

 

[someplace_else]

This mentality is entirely based in irrational feelings. Oh nooooo, not wigs he wore, oh the humanity!! The only people that care about this are being overzealous. It does not matter in the least. I didn't see the burn scar, but I doubt it's worse than what is already public. I cruised through her account, but didn't see anything beyond a molding for the scar. Would like to see it, personally.

But you have to consider that some people are more sensitive to these topics and to them (like to me) it just feels wrong. I am not judging anyone and I would never write Karen, it's just my guts that say "nope".

 

[MsAshley]

But you have to consider that some people are more sensitive to these topics and to them (like to me) it just feels wrong. I am not judging anyone and I would never write Karen, it's just my guts that say "nope".

If you're bothered by it, then don't look at her account. It's really that simple. It's interesting to me that people's strange feelings toward Michael take precedent here over what fans have said/done to Karen. Ask yourself why that is.

The fact people have organized a harassment campaign against her on more than one occasion outweighs anything she has posted that may affect "sensitivities". Using misogynistic slurs, mass reporting her account, etc. is all completely out of line for posting some wigs and stuff about his burn scar. None of that has any objective, demonstrably negative effect, and I could in fact argue the antithetical. But you know what does have a demonstrably negative effect? Doing what some of these crazed fans have done.

 

[someplace_else]

If you're bothered by it, then don't look at her account. It's really that simple. It's interesting to me that people's strange feelings toward Michael take precedent here over what fans have said/done to Karen. Ask yourself why that is.

The fact people have organized a harassment campaign against her on more than one occasion outweighs anything she has posted that may affect "sensitivities". Using misogynistic slurs, mass reporting her account, etc. is all completely out of line for posting some wigs and stuff about his burn scar. None of that has any objective, demonstrably negative effect, and I could in fact argue the antithetical. But you know what does have a demonstrably negative effect? Doing what some of these crazed fans have done.

I already wrote that the harassment is out of place, so don't know why you have to bring that up again.

To me, personally, posting this feels wrong. If it doesn't feel wrong for you, fine. I am not looking at her account, I see it here and basically everyone out there can see it and that just something that bothers me. Won't discuss it further.

 

[innuendo141]

If you're bothered by it, then don't look at her account. It's really that simple. It's interesting to me that people's strange feelings toward Michael take precedent here over what fans have said/done to Karen. Ask yourself why that is.

The fact people have organized a harassment campaign against her on more than one occasion outweighs anything she has posted that may affect "sensitivities". Using misogynistic slurs, mass reporting her account, etc. is all completely out of line for posting some wigs and stuff about his burn scar. None of that has any objective, demonstrably negative effect, and I could in fact argue the antithetical. But you know what does have a demonstrably negative effect? Doing what some of these crazed fans have done.

I don't see why any of that should affect my opinion on the matter if I wasn't aware of it to be honest.

How other people are reacting to her is completely irrelevant to someone's opinion on sharing intimate photos and details. As I say, agree to disagree.

 

[MsAshley]

I already wrote that the harassment is out of place, so don't know why you have to bring that up again.

To me, personally, posting this feels wrong. If it doesn't feel wrong for you, fine. I am not looking at her account, I see it here and basically everyone out there can see it and that just something that bothers me. Won't discuss it further.

You missed my point then. I brought it up because you, like some others, are far more intently focused on a gut feeling about something being wrong rather than the actual issue, which is the unethical reaction fans have had towards Karen. These things are occurring in the same breath, but one is given undue weight because of "feelings" not grounded in anything logical. I have not seen a single compelling argument for anything Karen has actually done wrong beyond "vibes".

I don't see why any of that should affect my opinion on the matter if I wasn't aware of it to be honest.

How other people are reacting to her is completely irrelevant to someone's opinion on sharing intimate photos and details. As I say, agree to disagree.

It should give you cause to reflect why that bothers you but not the overzealous reaction. The details Karen has given are fair game, and also apart of her life's work. She is entitled to say what she pleases in that regard. It is extremely tame in regards to what exists online, as well as what exists online in respect to Michael. Fans that have a problem with this appear sheltered/parasocial to me.

 

[someplace_else]

You missed my point then. I brought it up because you, like some others, are far more intently focused on a gut feeling about something being wrong rather than the actual issue, which is the unethical reaction fans have had towards Karen. These things are occurring in the same breath, but one is given undue weight because of "feelings" not grounded in anything logical. I have not seen a single compelling argument for anything Karen has actually done wrong beyond "vibes".

Okay, feelings aside: Michael always tried to cover the wound on his head, that's why I think he wouldn't want this information out there. That's the "actual issue" for me.

And I am a grown up and don't have to harass people, but I still can stand by my opinion.

And now I really won't discuss it further .

 

[MsAshley]

Okay, feelings aside: Michael always tried to cover the wound on his head, that's why I think he wouldn't want this information out there. That's the "actual issue" for me.

And I am a grown up and don't have to harass people, but I still can stand by my opinion.

And now I really won't discuss it further .

Yes, because he was a superstar that had to project a particular image while he was alive. At the same time, much of the tabloid nonsense that exists is because Michael put it out there with the intention of having people gossip. Bobby Colomby has gone on the record stating that he warned Michael NOT to do this, but he didn't listen. I would not in the least bit be surprised if he did the same thing with his scar. It's just flesh when you divorce the manicured image of the popstar meant to sell. And when someone is dead, they cease to be entirely, everything about them minus some bones and (ironically) hair is gone. These points cannot apply to the dead then, and only apply to the sensibilities of the living, rendering the logic you've used moot.

 

[Blues_Away2023]

The people harassing Karen on Twitter about what's appropriate to share are mentally ill.

Some of the comments I’ve seen towards her are utter vile. Like seriously, who the fck do they think they are?

These weirdo fans know better than the person who was around him for decades apparently. She gets called out for her BS , yet some of these people were not even alive during all of this

Who the hell are you to question someone who legitimately worked very closely with Michael for a large chunk of his life? I don’t get these weirdos

 

[MsAshley]

Some of the comments I’ve seen towards her are utter vile. Like seriously, who the fck do they think they are?

These weirdo fans know better than the person who was around him for decades apparently. She gets called out for her BS , yet some of these people were not even alive during all of this

Who the hell are you to question someone who legitimately worked very closely with Michael for a large chunk of his life? I don’t get these weirdos

Seriously yeah. A gaggle of them had a meltdown on her for talking about how Michael bribed his driving instructor with an autograph because he was a bad driver. It's honestly a pretty funny story, but they twist it so they can act like little monsters.

 

[Blues_Away2023]

This feels a little delicate for a non-family member to share, IMO. When you consider MJ as a person, I'd hate if someone shared this about a family member without my consent or approval. There are a lot of people who think that no unreleased song should ever see the light of day because they did not get MJ's seal of approval. I very much doubt he would have approved the release of pics of his burn scar and the wigs he wore without publicly disclosing.

I'm still in shock from his wound.

The wound - Is there more pictures of it? Or just the image of the injury mold that you were referring to?

 

[innuendo141]

The wound - Is there more pictures of it? Or just the image of the injury mold that you were referring to?

Yeah I'm just referring to the mold, should have been clearer.

 

[Fuzball]

Okay, feelings aside: Michael always tried to cover the wound on his head, that's why I think he wouldn't want this information out there. That's the "actual issue" for me.

These things have been known ever since Michael's autopsy report has been made public. I don't see here any bad behavior of hers.

 

[MsAshley]

Yeah I'm just referring to the mold, should have been clearer.

The fact this shocked you is insane.

The arguments made in this thread feel even more disingenuous now.

 

[innuendo141]

The fact this shocked you is insane.

The arguments made in this thread feel even more disingenuous now.

I'm not giving you the argument you are clearly looking for Ashley, this will be my third time saying we can agree to disagree. I've stated my opinion and I left it at that.

 

[Blues_Away2023]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2016653887302746406

Who’s this twat? Has an MJ page on X yet hates Karen and talks as though they were there with Michael and knew what was best for him

Idiot

 

[innuendo141]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2016653887302746406

Who’s this twat? Has an MJ page on X yet hates Karen and talks as though they were there with Michael and knew what was best for him

Idiot

Lots of fans have always considered Karen to be fair game to message, threaten and insult online for whatever reason. Lord knows why.

Anyone who posts or send messages like that publicly or privately to someone are absolutely unhinged. One thing I did agree with @MissAshley is that if you don't like someone or their posts - just unfollow.

 

[Blues_Away2023]

Lots of fans have always considered Karen to be fair game to message, threaten and insult online for whatever reason. Lord knows why.

Anyone who posts or send messages like that publicly or privately to someone are absolutely unhinged. One thing I did agree with @MissAshley is that if you don't like someone or their posts - just unfollow.

Absolutely! I scrolled down to another post from that account , it was about the recent teaser and how it was altered to look more like MJ.

The comment from that individual to the person who changed the image was awful.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2015251915546714524

 

[Themidwestcowboy]

These are my two cents regarding this.


First let me be very clear. If the backlash has indeed turned into harassment, insults and call for violence then It’a gone too far and that kind of behavior is unacceptable, period. There is a way to voice criticism without dehumanizing someone or calling for violence. I don’t support that in any form.


That said, uploading MJ’s hair pieces (extensions, wigs etc), and especially a mold that documents scarring from a traumatic accident, shows a serious lack of empathy. It treats painful parts of someone’s life as content. And I believe that people who don’t see the problem with this don’t fully see Michael Jackson as a person. Because if he were, the instinct would be empathy. Just ask yourself this, “Would I want stuff tied to my worst moments, whether it be an injury or trauma, put on display for public consumption?” Would you want that done to someone you love? Of course not. When you flip the situation that way, it becomes very clear how invasive and humiliating this is.


Being a public figure does not erase someone’s humanity. Being an entertainer does not cancel out their right to dignity. Michael was a human being and deserves respect, even after he’s gone. And this isn’t about pretending he was perfect or turning him into a saint. It’s about basic decency. If your first reaction to seeing these posts isn’t discomfort, then something is off. An empathetic response would be to pause and recognize that some things simply should not be shared. Because where does it stop? At what point does it become undeniable that this crosses a line?

 

[MsAshley]

These are my two cents regarding this.


First let me be very clear. If the backlash has indeed turned into harassment, insults and call for violence then It’a gone too far and that kind of behavior is unacceptable, period. There is a way to voice criticism without dehumanizing someone or calling for violence. I don’t support that in any form.


That said, uploading MJ’s hair pieces (extensions, wigs etc), and especially a mold that documents scarring from a traumatic accident, shows a serious lack of empathy. It treats painful parts of someone’s life as content. And I believe that people who don’t see the problem with this don’t fully see Michael Jackson as a person. Because if he were, the instinct would be empathy. Just ask yourself this, “Would I want stuff tied to my worst moments, whether it be an injury or trauma, put on display for public consumption?” Would you want that done to someone you love? Of course not. When you flip the situation that way, it becomes very clear how invasive and humiliating this is.


Being a public figure does not erase someone’s humanity. Being an entertainer does not cancel out their right to dignity. Michael was a human being and deserves respect, even after he’s gone. And this isn’t about pretending he was perfect or turning him into a saint. It’s about basic decency. If your first reaction to seeing these posts isn’t discomfort, then something is off. An empathetic response would be to pause and recognize that some things simply should not be shared. Because where does it stop? At what point does it become undeniable that this crosses a line?

Nonsense.

What you consider discomfort is subjective, and thus is not a solid ethical standard. This is rooted in inconsistent cultural conditioning. If we upheld this same, bizarre, strand of logic: forensic history would be unethical, medical education would be unethical, holocaust museums would be unethical. You also have to assume intent without evidence. There is a difference between sensationalism and artistic preservation or anything else Karen is actually doing.

This whole "would you want this done to you?" is an an emotional appeal. Public figures are not private individuals--especially after death when they cease to exist. That doesn't erase their humanity, but it absolutely changes the context of the situation. We make these exceptions all the time, namely autopsies, but also medical records and physical artifacts, for presidents, artists, and other historical figures (this includes victims of major events). You can state some things simply should not be shared, but that is according to... whom? This is a cultural line with no consistent rules, and what we do have tends to directly contradict this in application. I can name you dozens of examples.

I wouldn't have bothered to respond if not for the "you don't see Michael Jackson as a person" BS. I would contend if you are discomforted with Karen's posts, you have an extremely unhealthy relationship with a dead celebrity you never met. I would also like to state for anyone reading, even if MJ were alive and had issues, he would take Karen's side over anyone here in a heartbeat.

 

[Themidwestcowboy]

Nonsense.

What you consider discomfort is subjective, and thus is not a solid ethical standard. This is rooted in inconsistent cultural conditioning. If we upheld this same, bizarre, strand of logic: forensic history would be unethical, medical education would be unethical, holocaust museums would be unethical. You also have to assume intent without evidence. There is a difference between sensationalism and artistic preservation or anything else Karen is actually doing.

This whole "would you want this done to you?" is an an emotional appeal. Public figures are not private individuals--especially after death when they cease to exist. That doesn't erase their humanity, but it absolutely changes the context of the situation. We make these exceptions all the time, namely autopsies, but also medical records and physical artifacts, for presidents, artists, and other historical figures (this includes victims of major events). You can state some things simply should not be shared, but that is according to... whom? This is a cultural line with no consistent rules, and what we do have tends to directly contradict this in application. I can name you dozens of examples.

I wouldn't have bothered to respond if not for the "you don't see Michael Jackson as a person" BS. I would contend if you are discomforted with Karen's posts, you have an extremely unhealthy relationship with a dead celebrity you never met. I would also like to state for anyone reading, even if MJ were alive and had issues, he would take Karen's side over anyone here in a heartbeat.

I see that there are several concepts and things being inflated here, so I’ll do my best to answer all of them.

Firstly, calling this “nonsense” doesn’t actually address the question being raised, which is about purpose, context, and ethics. Ethics are not determined solely by whether something makes people uncomfortable, but discomfort often functions as a signal, not a conclusion. Ethical reasoning usually begins with moral intuition and is then tested against principles like consent, proportionality, intent, and harm. Dismissing that outright isn’t a serious ethical rebuttal.


Which brings me to my central question and what I have really been trying to figure out. Why show this at all? What is the purpose? If the intent were to raise awareness, to contextualize the physical toll, the suffering, or the reality of what Michael Jackson endured, then that intent would be reflected in how the material is presented. There would be educational framing, historical explanation, or at least an effort to humanize rather than isolate fragments. Simply uploading hair pieces, wigs, or personal artifacts/belongings with no meaningful context does none of that. It doesn’t inform. It doesn’t educate. It doesn’t heal. At that point, it begins to resemble exactly what tabloids used to do which is turning private elements of a real person’s life into spectacle. And we already know how damaging that approach was.

This is also why the comparisons to forensic history, medical education, and Holocaust museums don’t hold. Those examples exist within clear ethical frameworks and serve explicit public purposes, documentation, education, prevention, and accountability. They are curated, contextualized, and governed. Random or casual exposure of personal artifacts without consent, explanation, or demonstrable public benefit is not the same thing.


Questioning intent is not “assuming” it. If something is meant to be artistic preservation or education, that should be evident in how it’s framed. Simply asserting that label after the fact doesn’t make it so. The claim that asking “would you want this done to you?” is merely an emotional appeal also misses the point. That question is used to test empathy and proportionality, not to erase context. Public figures are not private property, and death does not erase ethical responsibility. The existence of exceptions, such as autopsies or preserved artifacts, does not mean anything becomes acceptable. Those exceptions are debated, regulated, and often contested for the same reasons being discussed here.


As for “who decides” where the line is, society does. That’s how ethical standards evolve through discussion, disagreement, and reflection. The fact that boundaries are not perfectly consistent doesn’t mean they don’t exist or shouldn’t be examined. Suggesting that discomfort implies an unhealthy relationship with a dead celebrity is dismissive and unnecessary. You don’t need a parasocial attachment to question whether publicly displaying trauma adjacent personal items is appropriate. That’s not obsession, it’s basic human consideration. And claiming to know what MJ would or wouldn’t support is pure speculation, which only underscores why restraint is usually advised in the first place.


So I’ll ask again, genuinely, how is this productive? What good does it do? What positive outcome is achieved by publicly displaying someone’s most personal items, especially those tied to trauma, without consent, context, or care? If the goal isn’t education, awareness, or empathy, then what is the goal?

 

[someplace_else]

I see that there are several concepts and things being inflated here, so I’ll do my best to answer all of them.

Firstly, calling this “nonsense” doesn’t actually address the question being raised, which is about purpose, context, and ethics. Ethics are not determined solely by whether something makes people uncomfortable, but discomfort often functions as a signal, not a conclusion. Ethical reasoning usually begins with moral intuition and is then tested against principles like consent, proportionality, intent, and harm. Dismissing that outright isn’t a serious ethical rebuttal.


Which brings me to my central question and what I have really been trying to figure out. Why show this at all? What is the purpose? If the intent were to raise awareness, to contextualize the physical toll, the suffering, or the reality of what Michael Jackson endured, then that intent would be reflected in how the material is presented. There would be educational framing, historical explanation, or at least an effort to humanize rather than isolate fragments. Simply uploading hair pieces, wigs, or personal artifacts/belongings with no meaningful context does none of that. It doesn’t inform. It doesn’t educate. It doesn’t heal. At that point, it begins to resemble exactly what tabloids used to do which is turning private elements of a real person’s life into spectacle. And we already know how damaging that approach was.

This is also why the comparisons to forensic history, medical education, and Holocaust museums don’t hold. Those examples exist within clear ethical frameworks and serve explicit public purposes, documentation, education, prevention, and accountability. They are curated, contextualized, and governed. Random or casual exposure of personal artifacts without consent, explanation, or demonstrable public benefit is not the same thing.


Questioning intent is not “assuming” it. If something is meant to be artistic preservation or education, that should be evident in how it’s framed. Simply asserting that label after the fact doesn’t make it so. The claim that asking “would you want this done to you?” is merely an emotional appeal also misses the point. That question is used to test empathy and proportionality, not to erase context. Public figures are not private property, and death does not erase ethical responsibility. The existence of exceptions, such as autopsies or preserved artifacts, does not mean anything becomes acceptable. Those exceptions are debated, regulated, and often contested for the same reasons being discussed here.


As for “who decides” where the line is, society does. That’s how ethical standards evolve through discussion, disagreement, and reflection. The fact that boundaries are not perfectly consistent doesn’t mean they don’t exist or shouldn’t be examined. Suggesting that discomfort implies an unhealthy relationship with a dead celebrity is dismissive and unnecessary. You don’t need a parasocial attachment to question whether publicly displaying trauma adjacent personal items is appropriate. That’s not obsession, it’s basic human consideration. And claiming to know what MJ would or wouldn’t support is pure speculation, which only underscores why restraint is usually advised in the first place.


So I’ll ask again, genuinely, how is this productive? What good does it do? What positive outcome is achieved by publicly displaying someone’s most personal items, especially those tied to trauma, without consent, context, or care? If the goal isn’t education, awareness, or empathy, then what is the goal?

Thank you

 

[MsAshley]

I see that there are several concepts and things being inflated here, so I’ll do my best to answer all of them.

Firstly, calling this “nonsense” doesn’t actually address the question being raised, which is about purpose, context, and ethics. Ethics are not determined solely by whether something makes people uncomfortable, but discomfort often functions as a signal, not a conclusion. Ethical reasoning usually begins with moral intuition and is then tested against principles like consent, proportionality, intent, and harm. Dismissing that outright isn’t a serious ethical rebuttal.


Which brings me to my central question and what I have really been trying to figure out. Why show this at all? What is the purpose? If the intent were to raise awareness, to contextualize the physical toll, the suffering, or the reality of what Michael Jackson endured, then that intent would be reflected in how the material is presented. There would be educational framing, historical explanation, or at least an effort to humanize rather than isolate fragments. Simply uploading hair pieces, wigs, or personal artifacts/belongings with no meaningful context does none of that. It doesn’t inform. It doesn’t educate. It doesn’t heal. At that point, it begins to resemble exactly what tabloids used to do which is turning private elements of a real person’s life into spectacle. And we already know how damaging that approach was.

This is also why the comparisons to forensic history, medical education, and Holocaust museums don’t hold. Those examples exist within clear ethical frameworks and serve explicit public purposes, documentation, education, prevention, and accountability. They are curated, contextualized, and governed. Random or casual exposure of personal artifacts without consent, explanation, or demonstrable public benefit is not the same thing.


Questioning intent is not “assuming” it. If something is meant to be artistic preservation or education, that should be evident in how it’s framed. Simply asserting that label after the fact doesn’t make it so. The claim that asking “would you want this done to you?” is merely an emotional appeal also misses the point. That question is used to test empathy and proportionality, not to erase context. Public figures are not private property, and death does not erase ethical responsibility. The existence of exceptions, such as autopsies or preserved artifacts, does not mean anything becomes acceptable. Those exceptions are debated, regulated, and often contested for the same reasons being discussed here.


As for “who decides” where the line is, society does. That’s how ethical standards evolve through discussion, disagreement, and reflection. The fact that boundaries are not perfectly consistent doesn’t mean they don’t exist or shouldn’t be examined. Suggesting that discomfort implies an unhealthy relationship with a dead celebrity is dismissive and unnecessary. You don’t need a parasocial attachment to question whether publicly displaying trauma adjacent personal items is appropriate. That’s not obsession, it’s basic human consideration. And claiming to know what MJ would or wouldn’t support is pure speculation, which only underscores why restraint is usually advised in the first place.


So I’ll ask again, genuinely, how is this productive? What good does it do? What positive outcome is achieved by publicly displaying someone’s most personal items, especially those tied to trauma, without consent, context, or care? If the goal isn’t education, awareness, or empathy, then what is the goal?

You're right, nonsense alone does not say much. That's why it's the thesis, which is then supported with various reasoning. Moving on, is this AI? This reads like AI slop, I'm sorry, but even the checkers seem to agree. My intuition, given my history debating over the years, is telling me yes.

Anyway, I don't mind debating GPT, I'm used to it at this point.

Documentation has always been the default, historically. Any sort of absence of display is not the default moral position as you seem to imply. If we take your position for granted, then perhaps we ought to have a sort of affirmative moral justification for documentation. But I'm not going to presuppose a value judgement there, because there's no reason to. Once again, historically, it is restriction that requires justification (think active harm through clear exploitative intent in a privacy or legal context).

Karen has stated what her purpose is, and its actually twofold. If you bothered to read her tweets about it, you would understand. But you didn't, or you would not be asking vague questions about intent or talking about how it's framed.

Even if you consider Karen's framing poor, it is not unethical. Something can be legit while also being incomplete, or ungraceful, or minimal. Tabloids are unethical (dubious given Michael's own involvement in some cases) because of intent and distortion. They have a selective sensationalist slant to ridicule and manipulate for profit. Karen showing an artifact that she worked hard on, because she is also an artist, and as she stated this is about her journey as an artist, does not reproduce any of those harms. Given how this avoids narrative distortion, it is quite literally the opposite.

You don't seem to knowing anything about the history of museums, let alone holocaust museums. They documented first, and then had the ethical debate for another day. Museums have a contentious history, often evolving from private and uncontextualized archives. You cannot reasonably demand museum-level justification from individual artists or collectors. Although, I will say, Karen however disorganized, has not breached any ethics a modern museum wouldn't.

Oh, society does? Interesting, because society bolsters this behavior all the time. It's only the strange, obsessive fans that seem to take issue. In fact, why is it that fans seem to only vehemently attack women that were in Michael's life? Hmmmmm. Geeee, what's the word I'm looking for... I think it starts with an "m". Almost like it frames this discussion from the onset into the additional problems generated by harassers and bad faith interlocutors.

Also lmao, posthumous consent is not an accepted concept. The dead cannot consent to begin with, as they are dead, they are no longer a person. What actually matters here would be proportionality of harm, which does not favor a single argument you have made. Michael's physical condition, even when he was alive, was barely a private footnote, as it became an integral discussion point of his life, which he contributed to on various occasions. This severely weakens the idea that Karen's artifacts are off-limits because of ethical concerns.

Moral legitimacy has nothing to do with productivity. Value can simply be accuracy, completeness, countering mythologization, resisting sanitization or whatever else. History does not have to justify itself to emotional appeals and their beneficiaries. Using this logic, empathy thus is not a veto power as you have used it. I can easily claim the antithesis at these things being hidden, and then the two feelings from opposite persons are canceled. That's why this is an incredibly poor ethical system.