Removing Michael Jackson Portfolio

Reply

Removing Michael Jackson Portfolio

Spockify1
Newbie

Considering the allegations made from the Finding Netherland documentary, that victims should be believed, and the actions being taken from other platforms - I feel there's a moral case for Spotify to remove Michael Jackson's portfolio of music from its platform. 

 

49 Replies

andrbota
Music Fan

1. OJ was found not guilty only because the jurors were black and the trial was about race. He was found liable 12 to 0 with a white jury.  MJ's jury had no black person.

2. Why do you compare the two cases? They are nothing alike.

3. If you know nothing about what happened at that trial don't talk about the case. The trial was a joke, the Arvizos were scammers. Listen to Gavin's testimony and then tell us why any sane person should send MJ to prison over the words of this liar: 

Gavin Arvizo lies on the stand 

4. MJ and OJ did not have the same legal team at all at their trials. MJ had Cochran in 1993 when there was no trial at all because the DAs knew Chandlers were full of s..t. He was not even charged.  You don't even know the basic facts about this case but you know MJ was guilty?  Sounds legit.

5. Stop using emotions and blindly believe accusers just because they say horrible thing and fact check them and use common sense. It's the accusers' ever changing contradictory and proven false statements which are the strongest evidence that Jackson was innocent. 


6. Nothing proves Jackson was a pedophile. Hundreds of facts proves he was innocent. Even if you ignore those facts, they do exist.

The Michael Jackson Allegations  



andrbota
Music Fan

You believe what exactly? That Jackson made Robson Safechuck bend over and raped them and then wanted both of them to be cross examined by aggressive prosecutors at this trial and was so lucky that Safechuck had no interest in getting justice and Robson even testified under oath that MJ was totally innocent? 

 

Is this what you believe? Don't you see how absurd this whole thing is? 

andrbota
Music Fan

Then send money to Robson if you feel so sorry for that fraud.

He set up this fund for people like you. Send him money. Make this Judas rich

Exclusive: Michael Jackson Accuser Wade Robson Is Ready for Donations with a New Non-Profit Designed... 

Robson does not deserve a penny of MJ's kids' money. He and his mother wanted to take custody of them after MJ died because they wanted to stay close to the estate where the money is. Only after the estate refused to hire Robson did he accuse MJ and started to shop a book. When nobody paid him he filed a lawsuit under oath tried to extort millions from MJ's estate. When the MJ estate fought and refused to pay him he made this film to make people like you hate MJ. 

Robson is as disgusting as it gets. But send him money if you want. 

andrbota
Music Fan

1. YouTube is just a place where content is stored. It says nothing about the validity of the content itself. It can be false or factual. 

2. A for profit one sides propaganda movie is not research. It's just a propaganda film. 

3. Read the court  documents cause they prove beyond any doubt that those two men are liars. No need for a freedom of information request, you can buy the court docs online. Apparently you don't even know how to do research but lecture others. 

4. YouTube has many videos showing MJ's behavior with kids. They all show how parental gentle and kind he was toward them. Such evidence should not be ignored. 




 

 

andrbota
Music Fan

Stop calling them victims. Just because they say they are, saying the exact opposite of what they said before they had massive money problems, they won't be victims.

The victim in this story is Michael Jackson and his family and estate.

andrbota
Music Fan

You don't know more facts. You just know more lies. 

You don't know what type of person was. Very clearly you didn't even bother to research just believes what the media told you.  He was more innocent than most of us, that's the truth. Perfect target for false accusers. 

Sparkez
Regular
Blimey you’ve had a busy evening replying to all my comments one by one. You’re not saying anything original.
You can believe and say whatever you like, it doesn’t change the facts.

Israell
Regular

The only fact is all those allegations are ridiculous, reckless and false. Some of those accusers haven't even met Jackson! https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/

garryjones
Casual Listener

As you say it is allegations.
The United Nations "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

Quote
Article 11
1

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2
No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

/Quote

The allegations may well be true. But what do we do with "presumed innocent" when there has been no trial or verdict?

I would be in favour of being able to charge people with crimes after they are deceased. Although they wouldn't be around to defend themselves and this would also mean the United Nations would have to add a paragraph 3 to Article 11.

You are suggesting Spotify or a TV documentary should have the power to play prosecutor, judge and jury. The idea that media or a cooperation would have those powers is repulsive.

Do I think Michael Jackson is innocent? I think he has to be presumed innocent, but that if it went to trial I feel there does seem to be enough evidence to convict him and a guilty verdict would be likely. It would also give his victims (if he was found guilty) a degree of justice and open up to claiming damages from his estate. In that event if listening to his music meant his victims were making money it would be a satisfying solution for all parties.

At the same time lawyers working on behalf of the estate would have the possibility to try and clear his name. What if it was all made up by people hoping for a payout? I am not saying it was, but that the case needs closure and therefore being able to charge the deceased and having them represented should be looked at.

Armand
Roadie

If you don't like MJ don't play his music but let others enjoy the music they like, really it's that simple. Incidentally you are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, it's one of the pillars of western civilization

 

Now R kelly is a different story, he needs to be banished to the deepest depths of **bleep** but that's because his music sucks

SUGGESTED POSTS