Would MJ be cancelled if his child sex abuse scandals happened today?

[YaaaasGaga 6,119]

Do you think if Michael Jackson was still alive, and his child sex abuse scandals broke today, that he would be cancelled immediately? With all of the recent sexual harrassment/abuse allegations against a string of men in Hollywood right now (R Kelly, Harvey Weinstein, 6ix9ine etc) it's interesting to see how in the age of the internet all of these people have been 'cancelled' straight away with huge backlash from the moment they were accused, whereas MJ still managed to have some continued success considering. 

His scandals were obviously very well publicised, with rumours starting around 1993 and continuing into the 2000s. From 1993 he had still managed to release two No.1 albums (HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I + Invincible) plus went on three world tours. He was also about to embark on a SOLD OUT 50 show tour at the O2 in London in 2009 before he passed away. After he passed away, more people had come forward in 2013, 2014 and 2016 with sexual abuse allegations against him but have done little to affect his reputation as a legend with the GP. 

Most of this happened before the huge advancements of social media, 'stan culture' as we know it today, and 'SJWs'. So do you think if the scandals were to break today, and he was still alive, that he would continue to have the kind of success that he did have and still be thought of as a legend? Or would he be cancelled?

Discuss

EDIT: This is less of a 'did he actually commit these crimes?' question. The question I'm asking is whether the GP would cancel him on the allegations/scandal alone if it was to happen today?

[JazzGa 14,623]

Well, as it turns out, he was framed by that kid's dad, who was recorded plotting to extort MJ for money and who DRUGGED HIS KID with barbituates to hypnotize a false memory/confession out of him... so I'd like to believe that the truth would be discovered sooner nowadays... It's pretty sickening to compare MJ to Weinstein in my opinion. 

[JazzGa 14,623]

MJ was likely a victim of childhood sexual abuse himself. So it saddens me to see people continuing to compare him to serial r*pists (Weinstein) and violent braggarts (69) in 2018  Just curious, do you personally think Michael was innocent or guilty?

[YaaaasGaga 6,119]

3 minutes ago, Satans Ex Wife said:

Well, as it turns out, he was framed by that kid's dad, who was recorded plotting to extort MJ for money and who DRUGGED HIS KID with barbituates to hypnotize a false memory/confession out of him... so I'd like to believe that the truth would be discovered sooner nowadays... It's pretty sickening to compare MJ to Weinstein in my opinion. 

In that case that did happen which was shocking. Though there are other allegations from when he was still alive as well as posthumously that aren't as clear.

The question I'm asking really is less 'did he actually do it?' and more so about whether the GP and social media etc would cancel him from the allegations alone if it was to happen today?

[ryanripley 86,575]

6ix9ine is still successful tho so the gp haven't cancelled him like they cancelled iggy

[Mythos 3,199]

But he was cancelled immediately, wasn't he? It was a huge scandal, and although he was framed, some people still believe he was a pedophile. 

[whore 11,447]

Before I begin, the comments above are accurate

But to answer, it’s hard to “cancel” an artist as huge as he was with as much cultural impact as him. Yeah, he would lose some fans, but it wouldn’t affect his career. Those fans would probably still buy his music and be closeted fans. 

It’s easy to cancel 6ix9ine who’s career was barely started from a trash viral song, or Harvey Weinstein who remained pretty much under the tabloid radar, or R. Kelly who always had a controversy under his belt (no pun intended). But Michael was a pop superstar who couldn’t avoid the spotlight. You can’t just banish him from media like that. 

[Ryusei 61,110]

Honestly after reading a lot on this site https://www.mjfacts.com/ I don't think he's as innocent as his fans and even the general public make him out to be. I can see why though, such a big icon in pop music and an advocate for a ton of good things. But honestly sleeping with young children in the same room or even the same bed as a grown man is an extremely questionable behaviour. And while they didnt find straight up child p*rn in his home they still found things that are on the borderline to being that. And why do you have to pay someone HUGE settlements of 8 figures if nothing ever happened? Idk while we'll never know the truth I think he was either really f*cked up from his childhood and genuinely didn't think this was a strange thing to do or he was guilty but knew how to mask it. 

[JazzGa 14,623]

7 minutes ago, Possibly Maybe said:

Before I begin, the comments above are accurate

But to answer, it’s hard to “cancel” an artist as huge as he was with as much cultural impact as him. Yeah, he would lose some fans, but it wouldn’t affect his career. Those fans would probably still buy his music and be closeted fans. 

It’s easy to cancel 6ix9ine who’s career was barely started from a trash vital song, or Harvey Weinstein who remained pretty much under the tabloid radar, or R. Kelly who always had a controversy under his belt (no pun intended). But Michael was a pop superstar with who couldn’t avoid the spotlight. You can’t just banish him from media like that. 

Right, we have all known for certain that Chris Brown is a serial abuser. He may be "cancellT" with the mainstream audience but he still has plenty of diehard fans (the Breezys). They don't deny that he is an abuser; they embrace it.  So, even today, artists can still have a career even if they are Certified Awful

[Eggsy 8,280]

17 minutes ago, ryanripley said:

6ix9ine is still successful tho so the gp haven't cancelled him like they cancelled iggy

Iggy was involved in a sex scandal?

[Ryusei 61,110]

2 minutes ago, Eggsy said:

Iggy was involved in a sex scandal?

no she was RACIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIST and triggered SJWs and it doesnt matter if women change they stay cancelled forever. (mods before you say i ****-talk iggy in this post: it's a joke and an exaggeration)

[Eggsy 8,280]

1 minute ago, Ryusei said:

no she was RACIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIST and triggered SJWs and it doesnt matter if women change they stay cancelled forever. (mods before you say i ****-talk iggy in this post: it's a joke and an exaggeration)

Ok i just wanted to make sure.. i was like wait what when how where why. 

[MyQueen 2,409]

Yes

[Chromatislaps 34,851]

59 minutes ago, YaaaasGaga said:

In that case that did happen which was shocking. Though there are other allegations from when he was still alive as well as posthumously that aren't as clear.

The question I'm asking really is less 'did he actually do it?' and more so about whether the GP and social media etc would cancel him from the allegations alone if it was to happen today?

He was cancelled regardless of him being acquited for all charges. Even if he was guilty of all charges. It didn't matter. There was a general concensus he was guilty, and that was mainly due to his appearances, his weird lifestyle and his fame. Even though he was acquited of all charges, he would have been broken wether it was now or 15 years ago. If it happened today social media would have lynched him...he would probably have taken his own life because of the pressure and unwavering view of him.

Michael Jackson was sued for all sorts of things after Thriller shot his fame up into the stratosphere. He literally had a case filed against him everyday up until his death, with the most outrageous and stupid reasons for sueing. Michael Jackson always chose to settle, since he knew it would take to much time and effort to fight every case. It was mostly advised by the record company Epic Records to settle. 

Other than that, for all the lawsuits filed against him, he always won the case or was acquited (in the case of the child molestation charges).

Regardless of when the allegations and case happened, he was already broken during the first case, and completely broke during the second case. In both cases he was acquited on ALL cases.

And therefore, it is ALWAYS necessary to delve into a case or situation before you judge, because public opinion can shape the truth even if it's not true. The video below is exemplary of that:

In this video above, Tinkebell describes multiple examples how she "torture animals"...eventually she explains that the examples she describes are fabricated lies to ruin her reputation.

[Thomas P 18,479]

I don’t think so. Look at Chris Brown. He’s a **** head horrible person who violently abuses women (including one of today’s most beloved pop stars) and yet he has a die hard following, still produces plenty of hits, and still gets Grammy nods. Michael was 300000x more successful and talented so I think he would just be considered polarizing.