SO WHAT ABOUT MICHAEL JACKSON?

The Moderate Voice ^ | Dec. 29, 2003 | Jay Leslie

[jraven]

SO WHAT ABOUT MICHAEL JACKSON?

Yes, he was amazlingly sympathetic, all right. Michael Jackson on 60 minutes oozed a (seemingly) childlike innocence. He said he felt "hurt." He said he would "slit my wrists" before ever hurting a child. And he made it clear that he thinks there is nothing wrong about sleeping in the same bed with young boys. People may (and will) debate his guilt or innocence long after the upcoming trial is over, even if there is tons of evidence to support the allegations. The reason: there is a clear belief in America that if you are famous somehow the rules that would apply to your unfamous and unrich neighbor Sidney Schmecklebaum down the street would not apply to you. We don't have royalty; we have celebrities. And that's CORRECT: no matter what, if your neighbor or my neighbor had kids over his house and slept with them, no matter how pristine he insisted it was he would likely be behind bars a bit longer than Michael Joe Jackson was. There would also be very little sentiment in favor of your poor (literally and figuratively) neighbor Sidney if he repeatedly and loudly insisted there was nothing wrong about having the boys in bed with him. But then he isn't anyone famous, whose music people loved (even if the love is in past tense). No one can play the "race card" for Sidney (I am amazed it's being played for Michael Jackson. The prototype of an African-American male in the 21st century he ain't).

[jraven]

I thought this guy hit it right on the head..

[drewliberty]

I don't think it is a matter of celebrity justice. When you set the hysteria aside, there are some facts you should take into consideration.

The "victim" is a teenager, not a small child. Teenagers have an interest in sex and many are sexually active. In fact, one out of three sex offenders is a teenage boy under the age of 18!!!

We should be always concerned to protect the sexual innocence of children, particularly small children, but when teenagers are involved, there is an issue of mutual interaction. I know what the law states, but that does not mean the law is right or logical.

Does anyone really believe Michael Jackson could really harm a teenage boy? The guy weighs least than most teenagers. He only weighs 120 pounds.

[luvbach1]

Michael Jackson on 60 minutes oozed a (seemingly) childlike innocence...

Belied by the obligatory crotch grabs, orgasmic screams, and violent pelvic thrusts in most of his videos.

[luvbach1]

The "victim" is a teenager, not a small child.

The teenager was 13 at the time of the alleged offense and was also suffering from cancer. Further, force will not be advanced by the Prosecution as the means of commission, seduction and use of an intoxicant will be, so Jacko's frailty is irrelevant