Posted by used2b on April 13, 2005, at 0:06:12
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson??? » used2b, posted by Dinah on April 12, 2005, at 22:36:06
> I'm not talking legality. I'm talking morality.
>
> He has been pestered for years about his relationship with Michael Jackson. I think a denial under those circumstances of something very private that others were attempting to make public doesn't open the doors to rip away his privacy.
>
> I don't know what happened between him and Michael Jackson at all. But whether the testimonies are true, or whether they're false, I don't see any added benefit in naming names. If they're true, it's horrible no matter who the child was. And I see harm in naming names. I wouldn't want it done to me.
I guess I don't know which one you say is being named. There is the child actor that is appearing on Larry King. Nobody subpoenaed him to go on television. If nothing happened sexually between them and he wants to support his friend Michael by telling the public nothing happened, it's his choice.Otherwise, the ones appearing in the trial, as I said, are shielded by law and by news-industry ethics unless they voluntarily appeared in a public forum.
How could it be immoral for the news industry to do its job by following up on allegations that a millionaire is raping children and using his wealth to cover it up? I am confident responsible media organizations offer confidentiality to those they are able to shield. The child actor is making personal apperances of his own volition, so it would be impossible to shield him.
The moral issue arises when a grown man publicly advocates sleep-overs with unrelated young boys who consider him an authority figure.
poster:used2b
thread:482913
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050408/msgs/483575.html