Michael Jackson's racist rant resurfaces

[Ayria 463]

4 minutes ago, ReginaGeorge said:

They used facts and they took both sides in consideration. I see you didn’t even read what I sent you so that speaks a lot about you. This discussion between me and you is done because I don’t do discussions with people who are not here for my argumentation. Do your research next time you claim you know suff. 

[thewho 928]

Human Nature my A$$. 

[Fresco 1,688]

I should know better than to post on this thread. 

I wondered where the jewish music industry stereotypes may have come from.

The wiki page, if you believe it, for Jack L Warner, founder of Warner Music Group, says that he is shrewd, tough-minded, and that his employees fear him. Also, he is Jewish. I'll add that founders tend to set corporate culture to some extent typically.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_L._Warner

[Guest]

Shame on you @Melech

[PunkTheFunk 124,403]

3 hours ago, nicolasrumet said:

But you do realize he was addicted to painkillers right. What makes you certain that this did not happen under the influence of the side-effects of such opioids which include hallucinations (imaging things that are not true, such as your lenders conspiring against you), confusion, change of mood etc...

The lengths that some people will go to defend this man...can't relate

[PunkTheFunk 124,403]

3 hours ago, mariomania1234 said:

The idea that these lyrics could be deemed objectionable is extremely hurtful to me, and misleading. The song in fact is about the pain of prejudice and hate and is a way to draw attention to social and political problems. I am the voice of the accused and the attacked. I am the voice of everyone. I am the skinhead, I am the Jew, I am the black man, I am the white man. I am not the one who was attacking. It is about the injustices to young people and how the system can wrongfully accuse them. I am angry and outraged that I could be so misinterpreted.

— Michael Jackson

Still doesn't explain the anti-semitic voicemail

[Ayria 463]

6 minutes ago, PunkTheFunk said:

The lengths that some people will go to defend this man...can't relate

I swear the Jack$on family has people on their payroll. 

[AbraChromatica 339]

Does this mean I have to change my username? MJ is not allowed on this forum anymore 😂

[NightStar 313]

Seeing the amount of heat in this threat, I wanna first of all say that I ain’t here to defend anybody. Anti-Semitism is awful. 

I would love to ask some questions, though, and I hope for your kindness and understanding. 

So basically, what I did when I clicked on the link in the OP - I tried to determine the source of the message. My question was: who claims that he said the “Jews were like leeches”? The answer was - The Sun does, it’s in the beginning of the second paragraph in MEAWW.COM article. 

Ok, so next thing I do is click on The Sun article and I try to understand why the Sun claims Michael Jackson made this statement at all. I explore the article, and then I find it, it’s the fourth paragraph beneath the picture, and here I quote. It says: “The recording was played in ABC’s Good Morning America in 2005 which prompted a complaint from the Anti-Defamation League which battles prejudice against Jewish people.” 

Source: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8713104/michael-jackson-anti-semite-branded-jews-leeches/

OK. So, according to the Sun, the recording with anti-Semitic rant was played on ABC Good Morning America show in 2005. OK. As a person who believes in doubt and reason and the power of logic in certain areas of life, I can’t help but pose the following questions. 

1.   What was this recording with the anti-Semitic rant? Like, where does it originate from? Is it the official recording released by the Telecommunication company that conducted the calls? Or by court? Or was it simply sum .mp3 file put on ABC show? Is its authenticity confirmed? 

2.   Who played the recording in the ABC show? 

3.   Is it legal at all to record telephone calls in California? If it is not legal, how did those who played it acquired the recording, and, if the wiretapping was not properly sanctioned by the authorities, how can we be certain of its authenticity and realness? 

4.   What are the transcripts of these recordings? Are they like official transcripts released by Telecommunication company who conducted the call? Or by some California court? Or were they just printed on A4? 

My Little Detective spirit demanded answers. 

The simplest thing for me was to learn was who released the recording. It was among about a dozen released by attorney Howard King, who represented Mr. Wiesner and another former adviser who were suing Michael Jackson at that time.

Here’s what Mr. Wiesner’s lawyer, Mr. King, said about it himself: "When you're engaged in a civil suit with Michael Jackson or any celebrity like him, your trial starts long before the jury gets impaneled," King said. "I want to show early on that when he starts trying to act like the victim ... we have the evidence to show that he's not the victim, he's the victimizer."

Source: https://www.haaretz.com/1.4883514

Despite now knowing who released the recording, the origins of the recording remained unknown to me. I only learnt that it was released by an attorney, by a simple citizen. It wasn’t released by either California court or by the Telecommunication company which can verify it. It was released by Mr. King, who is a citizen of the US who happened to be an attorney, like lawyer. The release of some recording by a US lawyer doesn’t make it undeniably legit. The lawyer has to prove that this recording is legit and authentic as any other lawyer – in court. 

That’s why here is the first question to this forum: can any of this forum users or lurkers provide me with the official court documents, documents signed by the judge, not some lawyer, where the judge determines the authenticity of this recording? 

Because what I found puzzling about this HAARETZ.COM source was that the author used the following phrasing: “The Anti-Defamation League on Wednesday demanded that Michael Jackson apologize for allegedly calling Jews "leeches" in a private telephone message that was recorded two years ago and has now surfaced in connection with a lawsuit against the pop star.” 

Allegedly. That word made me cautious. That sweet-sweet word that has been a powerful tool for papers to report all sorts of made-up stories by simply adding allegedly to the sentence. And this word comes up in the article again: “On Tuesday, ABC's "Good Morning America" aired portions of a 2003 voice message that Jackson allegedly left for a former adviser, Dieter Wiesner, in which he allegedly accused Jews of leaving performers penniless.”

As a reader, I kind of can’t deal with alleged anti-Semitism. I wanna know if it’s real or not.  

Moreover, the same source HAARETZ.COM claims that Mr. King “released only portions of the message about Jews were aired by "Good Morning America" but the edited message "didn't change in content one iota.” 

THE EDITED MESSAGE. HOLD ON HUNTIES. THE EDITED MESSAGE. 

Now, I understand that the message could’ve been edited in many ways. It could’ve been simply cut short in order to delete all the silence from the telephone talk so that only voice remained, but how am I supposed to know how exactly it was edited? 

Naturally I go to youtube and try to find the unedited message, but I only manage to find the edited 20 second snippet. So my second question to this forum: can any of you guys here please link me to the full unedited voicemails of 2003?

So I proceed from here knowing the following things for sure. Firstly, I know that the recording was released by Mr. King, the lawyer of Mr. Wiesner, who was suing Michael Jackson at that time. It was played by “portions” and it was edited, but it’s impossible for me to determine in what way it had been edited. Also, since it was released by a lawyer, its authenticity and realness had to be verified in court. I need court docs (No.1) and unedited recording of the voicemails (No.2), but I can’t find them and ask for your help. Please link me to these No.1 and No.2 receipts if you can. 

Now as I move to some more credible sources to explore the situation (no shade to HAARETZ.COM), I come across things that again begin to worry me. The Times does this with their headline: 

Jackson ‘called Jews leeches’

The Anti-Defamation League demanded an apology yesterday from Michael Jackson after ABC, the American TV network, aired what was said to be an answering machine message in which the star referred to Jews as “leeches”.

Portions of the 2003 message that Mr Jackson allegedly left for a former adviser, Dieter Wiesner, were played on Good Morning America on Tuesday.

Source:https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jackson-called-jews-leeches-k6cs9n0ngdr

They put “called Jews leeches” in quotes, meaning they don’t claim it was true – they just reference someone else’s claims. And then again, the “what was said to be” and “allegedly” remarks. 

Next, Jerusalem Post says that “ABC news has said that, while the authenticity of voicemail recordings left by Jackson to Schaffel could be confirmed, they could not verify the recording on Wiesner's answering machine.”

Source: https://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Michael-Jackson-calls-Jews-leeches

The Guardian says roughly the same: “Good Morning America said it could not verify Mr Wiesner's tapes beyond any doubt but had fully verified the voicemail messages made to Mr Schaffel.”

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/24/michaeljacksontrial.arts

 

So, it is now apparent to me that ABC Good Morning America show producers let Mr. King play two supposed/alleged voicemails of Michael Jackson: the first one about Jews, and they could not confirm the authenticity of that voicemail about the Jews. They also let play voicemails where Michael Jackson was asking his assistant to bring him $7 m in cash – that they could confirm. 

And now I am confused. I’ve learnt that portions of recording where Michael Jackson is heard going on a anti-Semitic rent were played at the morning TV show. The recording had been edited and the recording’s authenticity could not be confirmed by the producers of the show. It’s also the recording to which some outlets referred using the terms “allegedly” and they also chose putting the headline into quotes so that they could avoid being sued if the rant proved fake. 

Also, California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation, which makes us wonder how the hell Mr. King, the lawyer of Mr. Wiesner, could have recorded the confidential communication anyway? 

I’d very curious and thankful for you to help me overcome these doubts and answer the questions. I realize that maybe I am a flop Little Detective and all the court documents of Wiesner vs Jackson are there online, but I haven’t found them, so help’s appreciated. Peace.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Adakam 2]

4 hours ago, Ayria said:

What constitutes proof for you personally? Why don’t you take victims at their word?

So if I dont like you and I decide to accuse you of raping me just to ruin your life, would you be ok if you do get prosecuted based entirely on my word as a "victim"?

[Thotiana 872]

Where’s the audio?

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

17 hours ago, Muumisarvinen said:

No. You say that people who use mainstream media as a source for proof, information or justification are "slaves to the media" while you also use television news and the guidelines regarding their appropriate language  as a defense and justification. As in, you are quilty of the same behaviour that you shame others for. So the @A Hybrid's comment wasn't a slippery slope. It was actually more along the lines of a tu quoque fallacy, a special case of the ad hominem fallacy. You, an alleged law student, of anyone, should know this. 

 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/11/Ad-Hominem-Tu-quoque

 

(Also, this post isn't an attack against A Hybrid's comment. Just wanted to point out an incorrect claim made by nicolasrumet )

Ad hominem attacks basically mean that when you can't defeat a claim, you try to question the claimant's integrity instead using their past actions or statements (example: this guy proposes a plan to combat racism yet he said many racist things before). It would've been indeed an Ad Hominem attack if A Hybrid said "this guy now refers to government regulation yet he always attacked/never believed in the government and the law of the land before", except that the media isn't a branch of government and has nothing to do with administrative law. So basing his argument against my referral to administrative law on my skepticism of the media doesn't have a strong conditional relationship, and thus becomes a fallacy of a slippery slope. 

In plain english, Tu quoque fallacy would mean in this case that you use claimant's past action or statement against A to question his current support for A. That is not fitting in this scenario, since A = government regulation (FCC regulations), and my skepticism of the media has nothing to do with such regulations since they're not enacted by the media.

The two are separate. You can't use A as justification for B. I can be skeptical about the media, and still believe, abide by and refer to administrative law regarding broadcast decency. 

And look, you're using the same fallacy as him by conflating media with FCC regulation, using my skepticism of one as  a fallacious  justification against my use of the other. FCC regulation is enacted by FCC which is a government agency, not the media.

Please don't try to correct people unless you're sure about what you're talking about. It's rather rude, especially with this tone "You, an alleged law student, of anyone, should know this", only for you to end up being wrong.

[Thotiana 872]

37 minutes ago, Adakam said:

So if I dont like you and I decide to accuse you of raping me just to ruin your life, would you be ok if you do get prosecuted based entirely on my word as a "victim"?

His way of think is just weird. So let me take the word of a “victim” when I don’t have proof yet that they are in fact victims. Let’s just trust everyone. I also find it very ironic that you @Ayria think anyone who has a different take on this whole MJ situation is either a fan or someone who’s getting paid by the Jackson family (George Soros teas), when your take on this whole thing is just an opinion as it is for the other side. But you want to criminalize them. You weren’t there. You didn’t see anything. So you don’t know the facts. Neither do I.

[Ayria 463]

55 minutes ago, Adakam said:

So if I dont like you and I decide to accuse you of raping me just to ruin your life, would you be ok if you do get prosecuted based entirely on my word as a "victim"?

For me I believe victims when they come forward. False allegations are the exception not the rule and these boys had verified alone time with MJ, based on the behavioral pattern I have come to the conclusion that MJ is a child molester. I can’t think of another example of a grown man sleeping with little boys for nights on end that was “innocent” in its intentions. And if I display the same patterns as MJ then yeah accuse me, I’ve asked for it. 

[2School4Cool 6,434]

I never post on any of these threads, in fact I try to avoid them all together, but it’s really time we let this go. It’s one thing to discuss the sexual assault allegations, but I don’t see the point in discussing a voicemale of a man who died 10 years ago. I don’t know about Michael Jackson as a person, but let’s just focus on the musical legacy he left. We can’t cancel every person for saying something insensitive. I’m not defending him, I’m just saying that whether he was a racist or not, his impact on the world of music and pop culture is there and won’t go away. At what point do we stop analyzing the person and just focus on the influence he had. I don’t know if Mozart was a good person or not, but he influenced the world of music in his day, and that’s all that we need to remember. I don’t know what Michael Jackson was like in his private life, but he isn’t here anymore, let’s just respect the music he created.

 

Edit: I also would just like to say in regards to They Don’t Care About Us, the meaning of the song was to say “stop labeling me”, the next line is “don’t you black or white me.” It’s saying “don’t call me this, don’t say this about me, don’t label me because of the color of my skin or my race or religion.” We also do not know the full context of any comments he made. I’m not saying what he said was okay or defending it, but it’s important to know the full story before canceling him.