Discussions
Apparently Not...
Posted by gerryPlanetEarth • 6/30/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: community_guidelines
Why is discussion forbidden on blogcatalog regarding the question of whether or not Jacko was a child molester ?
What other questions are you not allowed to ask on blogcatalog ?
Can you ask the question "Is a foetus a Human Being ?" or is that question also forbidden to be discussed on blogcatalog ?
User Comments
-
I can say this much:
Jackson was NEVER charged with the crime - therefore he is NOT a molester.
And saying so - especially in the time of his funeral where there are millions of people worldwide in mourning is truly in bad taste - especially in a world wide forum like this one...
It would TRULY be UNprofessional to allow it to stay.
I mean - truly - can you PROVE that he molested anyone?
Can you Show me the proof?
Did he OPENLY ADMIT he molested a child?
Just because YOU don't like him - doesn't permit you the right to Slander him.
Nor anyone else.
It would be like me calling YOU a Pyromaniac Necrophiliac.
I don't know you - but I know you like burning people and then Screwing them after they are dead.
Therefore that above is slander.
I don't know you - and I said something about you that I've observed... And therefore I have slandered you.
(as an example... Personally if you are those things, I have no true idea... it was just a way to explain my meaning...)
PS. nope - I don't believe in the tooth fairy. I just know that sometimes things aren't what they seem.-
@wagerwitch
You are entitled to your opinions but one questions why you advocate censorship of opinions in opposition to your own opinion...
Perhaps you might be interested in purchasing the Brooklyn Bridge or some swampland... -
No...
You asked why HERE (being BlogCatalog Discussion forum) did not allow a thread stating that Michael Jackson was a Molester. You basically said that discussion on that topic was FORBIDDEN here.
I explained that:
A) Michael Jackson was never charged with a crime - therefore to put that opinion out as a statement is Slander.
B) This is a public Forum run by and as a professional business who wants to keep MILLIONS of people in the discussions without creating chaos.
C) Michael Jackson just died and it's very NOT COOL - to start swinging hash with MILLIONS of people LITERALLY in Mourning... (I mean duuuuuude... have you seen the hundreds of thousand just in NEW YORK alone at the Apollo Theater? Or the days of VH1 and MTV1 Tributary - and the dude isn't even buried yet?)
D) This forum is a business and those millions who are mourning - if they see something so slanderous - they might cause an uproar - or they might choose NOT to use BlogCatalog - or they may boycott it.
E) Maybe one of the BlogCatalog people is a MAJOR Michael Jackson fan?
F) Duh! It's just plain rude. (Especially right now... )
I mean - those are the reasons why it was pulled...
Not because I have an opinion one way or another whether he is or is not indeed a child molester.
Personally - I don't think he is - and I don't mind saying so to others who speak openly about it like that conversation - everyone is entitled to their opinion... RIGHT?
But - you asked if it was forbidden...
I'm just explaining that I don't think that it's forbidden...
It's just really in BAD TASTE. -
@wagerwitch "Jackson was NEVER charged with the crime - therefore he is NOT a molester."
It could mean he was not a child molester or it could mean he was not a convicted child molester.
I wouldn't claim to know if he was or was not.
However, the absence of a charge or conviction does not mean that he was not.
As example, if someone shoplifts but is never caught they are still a shoplifter.
Just as I'm no expert on MJ I'm no lawyer... you and Sweetviolet may have a very good point about libel.
Obviously if BC knows or suspects this they have need to protect the business. -
"It could mean he was not a child molester or it could mean he was not a convicted child molester.
I wouldn't claim to know if he was or was not.
However, the absence of a charge or conviction does not mean that he was not."
Ayuh - there is a point there.
I just truly think it unfair for the American Public to be saying "it's true - he is"...
Again - There isn't a Billion Gazillion Dollars in this world to protect anyone who molested my child...
If anyone molested my child - NOTHING - NO amount of money would be enough.
They would rot in jail - or die - and they could NOT buy me off.
Which makes me question the father/parents that did get bought off. -
@wagerwitch
"B) This is a public Forum run by and as a professional business who wants to keep MILLIONS of people in the discussions without creating chaos."
Millions ?
I would suggest the words dozens or hundreds are the appropriate words to describe the number of bc forum participants...
-
-
ROFLMAO - by the way - don't take the above personally. I am just trying to explain the reason why the posts didn't stay...
And why you've formed an opinion on someone you don't know - nor know the full entire facts about.
Not that you're a bad person for thinking those kinds of things - just that you don't have every fact involved. -
I wouldn't call it censorship, I'd call it a combination of common sense, good business sense, and human decency.
Jackson was not convicted of molesting anyone, therefore stating in writing that he is a child molestor is libel.
Allowing a libellous statement of this nature to stay on this board might have legal repercussions for BC. I don't blame them for taking it down.
What is more important here, however, is your very strident insistence on being allowed to post libel and an apparent complete lack of consideration either for the legal issues you might be creating for others, as well as a terrible lack of compassion for those grieving family members who loved him...like his children...who were never even accused of a crime and who can be seriously hurt by such libel at this sensitive time.-
Exactly - as I was explaining. Thank you.
Me - personally I don't mind the discussion - but BC is a business and has A LOT of readers - who AT THIS TIME of his death and during his tribute - may take serious offense. -
Someone getting his nose out of joint and crying "censorship!!" because he is not being allowed to do something illegal...imagine!!
-
-
hummmm what if it was OJ who died? He wasn't convicted either, how would people react? Just wondering.-
It would depend on WHEN - it was after his death... IMMEDIATELY - while people were mourning.
It's all in the appropriateness of the content and timing...
-
-
You can't libel the dead. You can write whatever you want about Michael Jackson without fear of repercussions by him. Go ahead an post a blog in the poorest possible taste; you probably can't do worse than some of the "friends" that have been on the various talk shows this week.
However, BlogCatalog - as the owners of this particular patch of Internet - can and do have editorial control. If they decide something is just going to generate a lot of flame and eat up a lot of bandwidth and ultimately mean nothing, they can cut it off if they like.
OJ WAS convicted of a crime and is currently serving time for it... just not the crime a lot of people think he got away with.-
Actually you can Slander the dead --- and the family can still sue for wrongful slander on behalf of the estate.
LOL!
At least that's what I understand...
But I think it's kinda strange to say things about people when you don't have all the facts.
-
-
Because I would rather bite my toe nails. -
Why should anyone outside Michael Jackson's personal circle of family and friends be interested in his personal life? I'm certainly not. -
I'm not a Micheal Jackson fan. I advocate against child abuse particularly molestors. However, the death of a man who truly you know nothing about (you aren't a friend or family member) and to pin stuff on him... I mean what's the point the man is dead? I grew up with a molestor. I can advocate for other children but that man is dead too. What would the point be? You don't know my family or dad. Other than my own word do you know if I am telling the truth? -
Is it libel to discuss the fact that Michael Jackson dangled a baby over the balcony of a high rise building or paid a young boy 20 million dollars ?
-
If it's a provable fact no. To say the man is a molestor and he was found innocent his children can sue and or the family.
-
-
-
@SiuilARuin
Thanks for your kind words and insight...
-
-
it's sorta like MSNBC's Morning meeting on Mondy with a panel of white folks, in which the moderator compared Wall Street regulating itself to "O.J. investigating his own murder scene."
Does a court of law mean nothing? -
Well mr. Earth
I agree with ya on the censorship part. We should be allowed to ask the ?. You asked what we think,you didn't say he was a child molestor.
Now to answer the question. He wasn't found innocent of the charges either. I don't know if he was or wasnt , but if he was he is definately gettin his just deserts now,I bet.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
