(I am tired, stressed, and sick of proofreading. Pardon any mistakes.)
I sit here confused and amazed. I know I am not being ignorant when I say these things. I just saw a report on HLN, that tabloidesque show with AJ Hammer and they lumped Michael, Anna Nicole Smith, Heath Ledger and Corey Haim all together as addicts...
Let's see here. First off let me see I feel such sympathy for Anna Nicole and Heath Ledger. I will always say someone had great responsibility in both of their deaths other than themselves. Both had issues in their lives causing them grief. But, ultimately, they both administered the drugs that killed themselves which was likely accidental but nonetheless by their own hands. Michael did not do this. Michael likely was in and out of consciousness, or completely out, when Murray decided to give him multiple benzodiazepines and then topped it off with propofol, or combined them at some point while not assisting his breathing in any form or matter. Michael was in no form to be able to make decisions that night, if he could even speak. However, he has now become a poster boy for celebrities who get their ways with doctors because they are addicts and have money and/or fame. This pisses me off. Michael deserves better. His life was not wasted. He raised three beautiful children. He donated millions upon millions of dollars to charities and individuals. He actually took time out of his life to spend helping others. Much of this went unheard of, though. Instead people focus on the 1993 and 2003 allegations and now consider him a drug addict. It breaks my heart for this man. I am afraid to ask, but could it possibly get any worse?
Are we going to sit there and allow Michael to be lumped into the same group of people that died from drugs, some of which abused meth, cocaine, heroin, ecstasy etc? Do we for one second think he ever abused those drugs? Do you think he snorted lines or shot his veins? Can you actually picture him doing that when he wore friggin' high-water pants for Christ's sake? Michael kept away from all of this garbage even after having one of the most unique and rather tragic lives we have ever witnessed. He was burned. He was emotional traumatized, too. Are we going to continue to allow the media to blame stars, especially Michael, for having clout to their name while they defend their doctors? Doctors are suppose to have a conscious--it is part of their duty to their patients to diagnose them and make choices for them. Since when is a celebrity or anyone for that matter suppose to make their own medical decisions and counteract what a doctor does or does not do for them? I know there are a lot of quacks out there but unless you are in the medical field they are hard to spot out. If a celebrity or anyone goes to a doctor and the patient oversteps their boundary, as all people, not just celebrities do, then that is the doctors' responsibility to say no and correct the situation.
Why in this culture do we place doctors on such a high pedestal that they can do no wrong? They show up drunk to work, abuse drugs, kill people and they still are held in such high esteem and basically worshipped by some people, hmm, kind of like some celebrities. Just look at Murray, his failure to support his children, his multiple affairs (rarely do I hear of a doctor who has NOT had an affair), his debt, his past record. People are still blaming Michael saying he brought this on himself. Michael brought all this misery into his life by trying to help children whose parents began lying about him for money which then led to the destruction of his life? (I will write about this tomorrow.) Murray is the one who went to medical school, completed 3 fellowships and practiced cardiology over the course of 21 years. So why is Michael having the blame put on him because he had fame and some supposed wicked power that overtook Murray and MADE him do things? It doesn't happen that way. Murray didn't have to do anything but keep his patient alive and care about him. He didn't even do that. Responsibility needs to be shifted onto doctors, doctors who go to school to save lives--not celebrities because people know their name and it generates money for the media outlets.
Why is it that I see how people always say celebrities get away with everything and have all this power? So does everyone else. I know felons who are living the high-life and they are not celebrities. I know people who have multiple DUIs and are still able to go buy booze at the liquor store and party on the weekends. I know people who have abused drugs. When I was in high school my classmates used drugs and had sex with each other--sometimes multiple partners in one night. This isn't just in the zip code 90210--it is everywhere. It is just celebrities have their business known to the world and people do try to cling onto them for their fame and use them--but that's it. Otherwise, what is going on in Hollywood is USA, today. You either take part in it or you don't.
What's sad is Michael didn't take part in this kind of hoopla. He stayed away from it. He was a good kid who worked hard, worked too hard. He was someone who got things done and did them right. He was someone who felt the needs of others and tried to tend to those needs. I cannot sit here and be silent while I slowly watch this man's legacy stripped from him. It is hanging on by bare threads. It isn't fair. He was one of the great humanitarians to ever live. We have to stand up for him, stand tall and firm. We have to take the same type of blows he did, but the more of us that try to help him, the lesser the blows will be--he took all the blows alone. His legacy, his reputation, and in some form, his life must be rebuilt. I know the allegations will likely always be a part of his life as will his manner of death, but that doesn't mean that his life was wasted. He literally made the world a better place and continues to do so even not being here. How many can say they do that? He still touches people's hearts and their minds--and their souls. Now we must touch his.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
Jackson Was Not Gay--Facts
Last week, the teletabloid "Extra" aired a story that claims Michael Jackson had a romantic relationship with a man named Jason Pfeiffer, based on Pfeiffer's recollection of events. Pfeiffer worked (or works) for Jackson's long-term dermatologist Arnold Klein. Klein, who also is reportedly homosexual and is suspected to have a relationship with Pfeiffer is also claiming this story is true. This story actually surfaced back in August but recently has been revamped, likely due to ulterior motives from these individuals and other individuals as well. Individuals who knew Jackson, including his family, close friends and his former bodyguards have come out to refute this claim through various outlets including television and the internet (Facebook, Twitter). His family, friends and former employees have nothing to gain by refuting this claim--they are not being paid to speak out. On the other hand, Pfeiffer and Klein were paid for their interview on "Extra". Though "Extra" has pulled the plug on the second portion of this fabrication, the damage is now done and attempts to repair it need to be done. Please do not think this article is being written with the purpose to attack homosexuality. It is being written in defense of Jackson who for years said he was not homosexual--and everyone should stand by his statement, especially now that he can no longer speak for himself. I will detail reasons why uninformed individuals should dismiss Pfeiffer's claim and believe Jackson himself, his family, friends, ex-wife, fans and former employees instead.
Alicia Jacobs, the TV reporter for "Extra" who is responsible for getting this story out to the public has been making statements on her Twitter that do not correlate with the issue at hand. Jacobs is turning a blind eye to the outrage concerning the authenticity of this story, instead making the issue about homosexuality only. Jacobs does not seem to be able to grasp the concept that many believe it should not have been aired since Jackson is no longer here to give his side of his story, either. Could this be part of the reason for her stance?
Article referencing death threats against Jacobs regarding comments about Carrie Prejean:
http://extratv.warnerbros.com/2009/04/death_threats_for_pageant_judg.php
Jacobs is obviously a strong proponent for gay rights, going as far as to make statements that resulted in death threats against her. She will apparently go to any lengths to push gay rights. There is nothing wrong with championing for gay rights but when someone, especially someone who cannot speak for themselves, is having a story fabricated about them and it is being used as tool to promote others' agenda it is not acceptable. It is morally wrong. It also taints people like Jacobs' promotion of gay rights which is not fair to those who are gay or support gay rights. It should also be said that individuals themselves should decide when they wish to become public with their sexual orientation. If they are no longer alive to discuss the matter, it should not be brought up. It is also never anyone else's job to reveal someone's sexuality for them. Klein feels it is okay to out someone "out of the closet" yet he has not been clear in coming out about his homosexuality himself--instead focusing on Jackson and using Jackson's name to bring him clout.
The following is an article on the internet tabloid web site TMZ:
http://www.tmz.com/2010/05/01/arnie-klein-michael-jackson-jason-pfeiffer-gay-boyfriend/
There are some inconsistencies with statements contained in this report, for example:
"On Saturday, Klein told TMZ he does not believe he betrayed Jackson because Jackson never tried to hide his sexuality. We called Klein out on his statement, because it seems to us MJ went to extreme lengths to keep his sexuality a secret."
Jackson did not try to hide his sexuality--he made multiple statements that he was a heterosexual, when questioned. He spoke of his heterosexuality in his autobiography "Moonwalk". His family has also been vocal about his heterosexuality over the years. Some quotes from Jackson and his family are contained in Catherine Dineen's book "Michael Jackson: In His Own Words". They have also recently spoken out in his defense as well.
While being videotaped and questioned regarding the extortion attempt by Evan Chandler, Jackson stated boldly that he was not gay. When Martin Bashir manipulated Jackson for the "Living with Michael Jackson" documentary he attempted to edit the footage in a way to make Jackson's reply ambiguous. However, unedited excerpts from the documentary aired as "The Footage You Were Never Meant to See" hosted by Maury Povich--which is the way Bashir's documentary should have been shown--shows Jackson's entire reply to the question of "are you gay?". Jackson replies that he is not gay but did not want to answer the question directly because he did not want to alienate his gay fans by making his heterosexuality so blatant.
Hours of highly-revealing and intimate audio tapes have surfaced online featuring Jackson speaking to a woman named Glenda about various sexual relationships--with women. The authenticity of these tapes have not been proven, but it would seem unlikely that someone would to go great lengths to memorize every aspect of his life, sound like him and then call someone and speak to them for hours without appearing to have any malice or gain in doing so.
Furthermore, audio tapes of Jackson recorded by Rabbi Schmuley Boteach, though contorted by his hypocrisy in the Rabbi's book, also do not point to Jackson being gay. Even the Rabbi himself said he does not believe Jackson is gay. It would seem that if this were the case, Jackson would have at some point opened up with this man about any homosexual tendencies he may have had (or the Rabbi would have taken note of them and written about them in his book). There were apparently no hints of homosexuality in these interviews. Rather, Jackson spoke of his sexual desires for women with the Rabbi.
Long-time biographer of Jackson, J. Randy Taraborrelli has also come out against the claims that Jackson is gay via his Facebook.
Three of Jackson's former body guards and Jackson's long-time friend Karen Faye have also said that Jackson was not gay via Facebook and Twitter, respectfully.
Fans who dub themselves as "followers"--fans who followed Jackson many hours of the day--also reportedly never saw Pfeiffer around which could make one question, was Jackson even Pfeiffer's friend?
How are we suppose to interpret Jackson's long-confessed love for Diana Ross? Anyone with eyes can tell he was infatuated with her in "The Wiz"--though yes, this is an opinion. Lisa Marie Presley has given recollections of their sexual relationship which would indicate him being heterosexual. Also, LaToya Jackson reportedly found a photo of a nude Jackie Onassis in Michael's possession at one time. Though embarrassing for Jackson, he did have pornography in his possession. The pornography featured nude women exclusively. There has been no evidence found that would point to Jackson being homosexual by anyone.
Referring back to the TMZ article, Klein then reportedly "went on to say his declaration is meant to shoot down rumors that Jackson was a pedophile."
Klein does not need to make a statement that Jackson had a homosexual relationship to prove he was not a pedophile. Does this statement imply that Klein is lying about the relationship only for the sake of saying Jackson was not a pedophile? Jackson was found not guilty of all charges in 2005. Books by Aphrodite Jones and Geraldine Hughes expose these allegations as exertion attempts based on evidence. The allegations, for the record, were extortion attempts. Jackson's innocence should be based on evidence that dismisses of all the lies that have amounted over the years--not based on a relationship that has no evidence of existence.
Does anyone find this listing of Klein's, courtesy of his Twitter account, on eBay to be a strange coincidence?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160425994807&viewitem=
I should also mention due to the nature of Jackson's dermatological issues, there are things Klein was exposed to that a doctor will typically be exposed to by a patient, including being shirtless in an office. Pfeiffer and Klein are in a position in which they could be breaching patient confidentiality (ex. HIPAA) by creating this falsified romantic relationship. Thus far, no substantial evidence of an sexual relationship is evident.
I firmly believe the only person to have had a relationship with Pfeiffer is Klein himself. Pfeiffer likely formed some type of friendship with Jackson based on his position working in Klein's office and their difficult childhoods (did Pfeiffer actually have a traumatic childhood or lie about it, too, to manipulate Jackson?). Revelations contained in Jackson's speech at Oxford about ten years ago detail his meeting with Shirley Temple Black--another child performer who could sympathize with Jackson's pain regarding his childhood. He details a flood of emotions felt when they met--as if two lost souls had found one another. Jackson apparently formed strong connections with those who had traumatic childhoods but that does not imply that anything sexual came about from these relationships.
How could these two men call Jackson a friend when they knew he treasured his privacy? He did not write the songs like "Privacy" for no reason at all. Jackson trusted Klein for years and likely did know Pfeiffer through Klein. If Pfeiffer did indeed tell Jackson he had a traumatic childhood Jackson likely did feel some emotional (not sexual) bond to Pfeiffer--Jackson was apparently drawn to people who he could relate to him concerning his childhood but he also seemed to want to help others with their pain as well. Why did Jackson spend so much time around children? Part of it was to bring those children happiness he felt he lacked when he was a child--he did not want them to experience what he did. Another likely reason was because he found aspects of his life depressing and isolating and one of the things he found joy out of was reverting back to a childhood he lost--and children, not adults, were the only ones willing to do that with him. Instead of taking antidepressants--he became a child to experience that unrestricted joy in life that was lacking at times. Children are carefree--Jackson wanted to be carefree to escape the adult (stressful) things he had been facing since he was a child. Just imagine if you were being sued everyday by people you did not even know, being stabbed in the back by people you thought cared about you, and on top of all that, not knowing who really cared about you and who did not--and to have to experience this as someone who wanted to be loved so desperately by others. Here again, we see Jackson's personal plight with people such as Pfeiffer a long-time friend Klein now added to the list of "backstabbers".
How dare these two men take advantage of a friendship-based relationship and use it to fuel something that Jackson would not want discussed and is simply false.
Today's society of how a man should be is incredibly warped. Jackson appeared to be a very warm, gentle and sensitive soul. He enjoyed simple pleasures like water balloon fights that society in general finds inappropriate for adults, especially for straight men. However, society in general cannot relate to the life this man lived. He was had a life like no other--he never escaped from fame when he was thrust into it at the age of 10. His eccentricities made him a target--just as the nerdy kid in school gets bullied. Rather than this child-like man being accepted by society for being unique man with a different approach to life, we are now more apt to accept a man like Tiger Woods or John Edwards as "real men". What an insult to men across the world, straight or gay. Woods and Edwards are not men--they are trash. Regardless of a man (or woman's) sexuality--our views of what is and is not acceptable should change. Our views of what should and should not be made public should change, too. What we believe to be true should be questioned. Society should be more willing to accept that Jackson was just a misunderstood man who was beaten down by society. Enough is enough.
Alicia Jacobs, the TV reporter for "Extra" who is responsible for getting this story out to the public has been making statements on her Twitter that do not correlate with the issue at hand. Jacobs is turning a blind eye to the outrage concerning the authenticity of this story, instead making the issue about homosexuality only. Jacobs does not seem to be able to grasp the concept that many believe it should not have been aired since Jackson is no longer here to give his side of his story, either. Could this be part of the reason for her stance?
Article referencing death threats against Jacobs regarding comments about Carrie Prejean:
http://extratv.warnerbros.com/2009/04/death_threats_for_pageant_judg.php
Jacobs is obviously a strong proponent for gay rights, going as far as to make statements that resulted in death threats against her. She will apparently go to any lengths to push gay rights. There is nothing wrong with championing for gay rights but when someone, especially someone who cannot speak for themselves, is having a story fabricated about them and it is being used as tool to promote others' agenda it is not acceptable. It is morally wrong. It also taints people like Jacobs' promotion of gay rights which is not fair to those who are gay or support gay rights. It should also be said that individuals themselves should decide when they wish to become public with their sexual orientation. If they are no longer alive to discuss the matter, it should not be brought up. It is also never anyone else's job to reveal someone's sexuality for them. Klein feels it is okay to out someone "out of the closet" yet he has not been clear in coming out about his homosexuality himself--instead focusing on Jackson and using Jackson's name to bring him clout.
The following is an article on the internet tabloid web site TMZ:
http://www.tmz.com/2010/05/01/arnie-klein-michael-jackson-jason-pfeiffer-gay-boyfriend/
There are some inconsistencies with statements contained in this report, for example:
"On Saturday, Klein told TMZ he does not believe he betrayed Jackson because Jackson never tried to hide his sexuality. We called Klein out on his statement, because it seems to us MJ went to extreme lengths to keep his sexuality a secret."
Jackson did not try to hide his sexuality--he made multiple statements that he was a heterosexual, when questioned. He spoke of his heterosexuality in his autobiography "Moonwalk". His family has also been vocal about his heterosexuality over the years. Some quotes from Jackson and his family are contained in Catherine Dineen's book "Michael Jackson: In His Own Words". They have also recently spoken out in his defense as well.
While being videotaped and questioned regarding the extortion attempt by Evan Chandler, Jackson stated boldly that he was not gay. When Martin Bashir manipulated Jackson for the "Living with Michael Jackson" documentary he attempted to edit the footage in a way to make Jackson's reply ambiguous. However, unedited excerpts from the documentary aired as "The Footage You Were Never Meant to See" hosted by Maury Povich--which is the way Bashir's documentary should have been shown--shows Jackson's entire reply to the question of "are you gay?". Jackson replies that he is not gay but did not want to answer the question directly because he did not want to alienate his gay fans by making his heterosexuality so blatant.
Hours of highly-revealing and intimate audio tapes have surfaced online featuring Jackson speaking to a woman named Glenda about various sexual relationships--with women. The authenticity of these tapes have not been proven, but it would seem unlikely that someone would to go great lengths to memorize every aspect of his life, sound like him and then call someone and speak to them for hours without appearing to have any malice or gain in doing so.
Furthermore, audio tapes of Jackson recorded by Rabbi Schmuley Boteach, though contorted by his hypocrisy in the Rabbi's book, also do not point to Jackson being gay. Even the Rabbi himself said he does not believe Jackson is gay. It would seem that if this were the case, Jackson would have at some point opened up with this man about any homosexual tendencies he may have had (or the Rabbi would have taken note of them and written about them in his book). There were apparently no hints of homosexuality in these interviews. Rather, Jackson spoke of his sexual desires for women with the Rabbi.
Long-time biographer of Jackson, J. Randy Taraborrelli has also come out against the claims that Jackson is gay via his Facebook.
Three of Jackson's former body guards and Jackson's long-time friend Karen Faye have also said that Jackson was not gay via Facebook and Twitter, respectfully.
Fans who dub themselves as "followers"--fans who followed Jackson many hours of the day--also reportedly never saw Pfeiffer around which could make one question, was Jackson even Pfeiffer's friend?
How are we suppose to interpret Jackson's long-confessed love for Diana Ross? Anyone with eyes can tell he was infatuated with her in "The Wiz"--though yes, this is an opinion. Lisa Marie Presley has given recollections of their sexual relationship which would indicate him being heterosexual. Also, LaToya Jackson reportedly found a photo of a nude Jackie Onassis in Michael's possession at one time. Though embarrassing for Jackson, he did have pornography in his possession. The pornography featured nude women exclusively. There has been no evidence found that would point to Jackson being homosexual by anyone.
Referring back to the TMZ article, Klein then reportedly "went on to say his declaration is meant to shoot down rumors that Jackson was a pedophile."
Klein does not need to make a statement that Jackson had a homosexual relationship to prove he was not a pedophile. Does this statement imply that Klein is lying about the relationship only for the sake of saying Jackson was not a pedophile? Jackson was found not guilty of all charges in 2005. Books by Aphrodite Jones and Geraldine Hughes expose these allegations as exertion attempts based on evidence. The allegations, for the record, were extortion attempts. Jackson's innocence should be based on evidence that dismisses of all the lies that have amounted over the years--not based on a relationship that has no evidence of existence.
Does anyone find this listing of Klein's, courtesy of his Twitter account, on eBay to be a strange coincidence?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160425994807&viewitem=
I should also mention due to the nature of Jackson's dermatological issues, there are things Klein was exposed to that a doctor will typically be exposed to by a patient, including being shirtless in an office. Pfeiffer and Klein are in a position in which they could be breaching patient confidentiality (ex. HIPAA) by creating this falsified romantic relationship. Thus far, no substantial evidence of an sexual relationship is evident.
I firmly believe the only person to have had a relationship with Pfeiffer is Klein himself. Pfeiffer likely formed some type of friendship with Jackson based on his position working in Klein's office and their difficult childhoods (did Pfeiffer actually have a traumatic childhood or lie about it, too, to manipulate Jackson?). Revelations contained in Jackson's speech at Oxford about ten years ago detail his meeting with Shirley Temple Black--another child performer who could sympathize with Jackson's pain regarding his childhood. He details a flood of emotions felt when they met--as if two lost souls had found one another. Jackson apparently formed strong connections with those who had traumatic childhoods but that does not imply that anything sexual came about from these relationships.
How could these two men call Jackson a friend when they knew he treasured his privacy? He did not write the songs like "Privacy" for no reason at all. Jackson trusted Klein for years and likely did know Pfeiffer through Klein. If Pfeiffer did indeed tell Jackson he had a traumatic childhood Jackson likely did feel some emotional (not sexual) bond to Pfeiffer--Jackson was apparently drawn to people who he could relate to him concerning his childhood but he also seemed to want to help others with their pain as well. Why did Jackson spend so much time around children? Part of it was to bring those children happiness he felt he lacked when he was a child--he did not want them to experience what he did. Another likely reason was because he found aspects of his life depressing and isolating and one of the things he found joy out of was reverting back to a childhood he lost--and children, not adults, were the only ones willing to do that with him. Instead of taking antidepressants--he became a child to experience that unrestricted joy in life that was lacking at times. Children are carefree--Jackson wanted to be carefree to escape the adult (stressful) things he had been facing since he was a child. Just imagine if you were being sued everyday by people you did not even know, being stabbed in the back by people you thought cared about you, and on top of all that, not knowing who really cared about you and who did not--and to have to experience this as someone who wanted to be loved so desperately by others. Here again, we see Jackson's personal plight with people such as Pfeiffer a long-time friend Klein now added to the list of "backstabbers".
How dare these two men take advantage of a friendship-based relationship and use it to fuel something that Jackson would not want discussed and is simply false.
Today's society of how a man should be is incredibly warped. Jackson appeared to be a very warm, gentle and sensitive soul. He enjoyed simple pleasures like water balloon fights that society in general finds inappropriate for adults, especially for straight men. However, society in general cannot relate to the life this man lived. He was had a life like no other--he never escaped from fame when he was thrust into it at the age of 10. His eccentricities made him a target--just as the nerdy kid in school gets bullied. Rather than this child-like man being accepted by society for being unique man with a different approach to life, we are now more apt to accept a man like Tiger Woods or John Edwards as "real men". What an insult to men across the world, straight or gay. Woods and Edwards are not men--they are trash. Regardless of a man (or woman's) sexuality--our views of what is and is not acceptable should change. Our views of what should and should not be made public should change, too. What we believe to be true should be questioned. Society should be more willing to accept that Jackson was just a misunderstood man who was beaten down by society. Enough is enough.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
SICK OF SLANDER
I was working on a blog post regarding the bogus story that aired on "Extra" last week concerning Michael Jackson's sexuality when I ran into a hefty snag that set my emotions afire. I went to YouTube to try and find some direct quotes from videos of Jackson himself regarding the matter and was appalled and infuriated when I encountered numerous videos and people slandering Jackson's name--a man who not only had to endure this type of malicious behavior for the majority of his life but a man who also is now deceased. His tragic departure from this Earth, that was a homicide no less, should have brought about some new means of respect for him, regardless of opinions about him before his death. Even with his passing people still are not grasping the concept of what happened to this man who had his life turned into an upside-down hell. I know people are entitled to opinions. This is not a tirade in opposition to people having their own beliefs or opinions, but when I see videos saying Jackson's FBI files contain "proof" he was a molester I have to speak out--that is NOT okay. Numerous people have FBI files on them--that does NOT mean they are a criminal or have committed any wrongdoing. In addition, the files did not contain ONE shred of evidence that Jackson did any wrongdoing. Many of the files literally said they found NOTHING.
The video that initiated this fury:
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=gfnEz01HtTY
I made several comments that were deleted by the owner of this video. Why? I admit I called them "fucking retards" (what do you expect, I am hurt and angry and the truth must have hurt). But, more importantly, in separate comments that contained no foul language, I directed them and all viewers to legitimate sources of accurate information regarding the summarization of the FBI files.
Accurate information regarding the FBI files:
http://gatorgirl277.blogspot.com/2009/12/summary-of-michael-jacksons-fbi-files.html
http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/01/fbi-files-support-jacksons-innocence.html
http://www.mj-777.com/?p=1238
Then, I ran across this particular skank:
http://www.youtube.com/user/MissMiyamoto
I have picked this person out for her tasteless videos that feature none other than herself scantily-clad (which is her obvious attempt to get viewers to actually find it necessary to view her videos, likely for ulterior motives not related to Jackson). But sadly, a plethora of videos like hers are on YouTube--she is not the only one. But, what is even more disturbing is this person's profile contains one of the most disrespectful pieces of verbalized trash that I have ever seen in my life. I tried to report her profile to YouTube but there is apparently no way to report profiles that is visible, only videos are easily reported, and to report videos you have to indicate a compelling reason. Isn't slander, libel, defamation of character, harassment, and what could be viewed as abuse and/or torture enough of a reason to remove a profile or video without having to say much else?
Look at the rules laid out by YouTube regarding "Hateful Content":
What is Hateful Content?
Hateful Content is videos, comments or channel information which contain "Hate Speech". "Hate speech" refers to content that promotes hatred against members of a protected group. Protected groups include race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity.
Sometimes there is a fine line between what is and what is not considered hate speech. For instance, it is generally okay to criticize a nation, but not okay to make insulting generalizations about people of a particular nationality.
How can I remove hateful content from YouTube?
• Moderate the comments on your channel
• Remove comments from your video
• Flag videos that contain hate speech
• Report channels and comments through the Help & Safety Tool
Keep in mind that not everything that is mean or insulting is considered hate speech.
Tips for confronting hate speech on YouTube from the Anti-Defamation League.
Flag: Flag the offensive video for review by the YouTube team. Make sure to include why you thought the video was hateful.
Think: Perspective is crucial. Think before you respond, and try to respond in a thoughtful, careful manner.
Speak: Post videos or comments that oppose the offensive point of view. Let the YouTube community see a competing perspective.
Applaud: Don't forget to post positive comments on videos that share positive messages.
Talk: Talk to your friends, teachers, or family about what you've seen.
Learn: Many groups publish information about combating particular kinds of prejudice, such as the Anti-Defamation League's resources on anti-Semitism.
E-mail: Notify groups like the Anti-Defamation League, which keep track of trends in hate speech.
Act: Take active steps to combat prejudice online and offline.
FAQ:
Q: Is it hate speech if they aren't talking about a protected group?
A: No, it is not considered hate speech if a protected group is not involved. So if someone is making insults towards you personally that are not considered hate speech, use the Help & Safety Tool.
Q: Why wasn't the video or comment I reported to YouTube removed?
A: The YouTube Team reviews all videos flagged and reports made through the Help & Safety Tool. So if a video you have flagged, or comment you have reported hasn't been removed, it's because it doesn't violate our hate speech policies. We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view, and keep in mind that not everything that is mean or insulting is considered hate speech.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait, you have to be offending someone by saying something about their "race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity". What about defamation? Isn't that wrong? What about lying or misrepresenting information? Shouldn't we be entitled to decide what is "hate" or "hateful" and not have it defined by law? I consider anything that is written to destroy Jackson's legacy as hate and no one will convince me otherwise.
YouTube says they believe in free speech. Thus, I have the right to say their rules and system for reporting slander/libel (or "hate") are pure shit. I believe in free speech, but as with everything there is a point where that freedom should not encroach upon other peoples' freedom, livelihood, or legacy whether they are alive or deceased. Take for example, people are not allowed to make death threats against the president of the United States. Yet, there are groups like this being allowed to persist concerning President Obama:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/28/facebook-group-praying-fo_n_555227.html
I would not be shocked if every member of this group, regardless of it being over 1,000,000 people, now have an FBI files on them. It is not hard to know who is or is not a member of that group and if one entity knows and is keeping tallies, it is the US government. This could even be dubbed as a death threat by some considering the name of the group is " DEAR LORD, THIS YEAR YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTOR, PATRICK SWAYZIE. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTRESS, FARAH FAWCETT. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE SINGER, MICHAEL JACKSON. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, MY FAVORITE PRESIDENT IS BARACK OBAMA. AMEN." It is one thing to disagree with the president, even hate him, but to wish for his death? That is going too far.
What is Facebook's stance to group?
"Facebook's procedure for dealing with potentially offensive groups is pretty murky. Facebook has stated in the past that it takes seriously the free speech of its groups, even potentially offensive ones: A number of Facebook groups praising Joe Stack, the man who crashed a small plane into a government building in February, are still alive and well."
Joe Stack's actions are not anywhere close to a group asking for Obama's death. Get real, people. That is not comparing apples to apples.
Compare what is occurring to Jackson on YouTube (which ultimately will affect his family, including his children someday) to this news article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/us/07nurses.html?pagewanted=1&emc=eta1
Nurse Anne Mitchell found herself facing TEN YEARS in prison for doing what is deemed a responsibility of her job: notifying the state medical board that she felt a doctor was committing malpractice. Even nurse Vickilyn Galle found herself facing charges (that were later dropped) for merely helping type up the letter that went to the State Board. Dr. Rolando G. Arafiles Jr. claimed he was being harassed and abused by these nurses because he was reported by them to be investigated yet he had committed various acts of malpractice before and had current and previous sanctions taken upon his license including restrictions placed on his license due to issues at a weight-loss clinic. No one called him a molester--his medical competency was merely put into question--yet he is allowed to sue and claim harassment and abuse while Jackson cannot?
Tell me, how is a nurse who did her job and tried to protect the lives of patients being tortured with the possibility of TEN YEARS IN PRISON when people are dutifully attacking someone like Jackson on a daily basis and it is okay? Why is there this double-standard? There should NOT be a double-standard and something needs to be done NOW.
YouTube appears to be more concerned with copyright infringement than preventing the defamation of people's name, whether they are Jackson or not. However, my main concern is Jackson. I know the artist Prince blocks a majority of his videos from being placed on YouTube due to copyrights yet videos that continue to defame Jackson are okay and being viewed my thousands of people, most of whom likely have no clue whether or not to believe Jackson was or was not innocent of the allegations that were firmly-established extortion attempts. Let's not forget that Michael Jackson was found NOT GUILTY of ALL charges brought against him in 2005. The accusations should have stopped then and there--PERIOD. There is a reason for that verdict, regardless of what some idiots say who enjoy spewing false information that is fueled by hate and sheer ignorance.
For more information regarding these extortion attempts, which is exactly what they were, please become familiar with the following books:
Aphrodite Jones' "Conspiracy"
Geraldine Hughes' "Redemption"
I will not hesitate to write a letter, gather signatures, and start a campaign against YouTube and all other entities that are promoting this kind of distribution of information. I enjoy YouTube and have a membership with them, but something needs to be done to get the message to them to stop allowing their site to be a harboring ground of hate and defamation. Something needs to be done NOW. I wish Jackson's family would sue every single individual or entity that continues to promote this kind of defamation. If I had such power invested in me, I would sue without hesitation. Enough is enough. I have not even bothered to mention all the books that have been published about Jackson that are nothing more than venomous tales that people have created to earn a name for themselves while getting paid, too. People , WAKE UP and stop trusting everything fed to you. As Benjamin Franklin once said, "believe none of what you hear and half of what you see." Granted, that was before the internet. I would say now, believe none of what you hear or see.
The video that initiated this fury:
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=gfnEz01HtTY
I made several comments that were deleted by the owner of this video. Why? I admit I called them "fucking retards" (what do you expect, I am hurt and angry and the truth must have hurt). But, more importantly, in separate comments that contained no foul language, I directed them and all viewers to legitimate sources of accurate information regarding the summarization of the FBI files.
Accurate information regarding the FBI files:
http://gatorgirl277.blogspot.com/2009/12/summary-of-michael-jacksons-fbi-files.html
http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/01/fbi-files-support-jacksons-innocence.html
http://www.mj-777.com/?p=1238
Then, I ran across this particular skank:
http://www.youtube.com/user/MissMiyamoto
I have picked this person out for her tasteless videos that feature none other than herself scantily-clad (which is her obvious attempt to get viewers to actually find it necessary to view her videos, likely for ulterior motives not related to Jackson). But sadly, a plethora of videos like hers are on YouTube--she is not the only one. But, what is even more disturbing is this person's profile contains one of the most disrespectful pieces of verbalized trash that I have ever seen in my life. I tried to report her profile to YouTube but there is apparently no way to report profiles that is visible, only videos are easily reported, and to report videos you have to indicate a compelling reason. Isn't slander, libel, defamation of character, harassment, and what could be viewed as abuse and/or torture enough of a reason to remove a profile or video without having to say much else?
Look at the rules laid out by YouTube regarding "Hateful Content":
What is Hateful Content?
Hateful Content is videos, comments or channel information which contain "Hate Speech". "Hate speech" refers to content that promotes hatred against members of a protected group. Protected groups include race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity.
Sometimes there is a fine line between what is and what is not considered hate speech. For instance, it is generally okay to criticize a nation, but not okay to make insulting generalizations about people of a particular nationality.
How can I remove hateful content from YouTube?
• Moderate the comments on your channel
• Remove comments from your video
• Flag videos that contain hate speech
• Report channels and comments through the Help & Safety Tool
Keep in mind that not everything that is mean or insulting is considered hate speech.
Tips for confronting hate speech on YouTube from the Anti-Defamation League.
Flag: Flag the offensive video for review by the YouTube team. Make sure to include why you thought the video was hateful.
Think: Perspective is crucial. Think before you respond, and try to respond in a thoughtful, careful manner.
Speak: Post videos or comments that oppose the offensive point of view. Let the YouTube community see a competing perspective.
Applaud: Don't forget to post positive comments on videos that share positive messages.
Talk: Talk to your friends, teachers, or family about what you've seen.
Learn: Many groups publish information about combating particular kinds of prejudice, such as the Anti-Defamation League's resources on anti-Semitism.
E-mail: Notify groups like the Anti-Defamation League, which keep track of trends in hate speech.
Act: Take active steps to combat prejudice online and offline.
FAQ:
Q: Is it hate speech if they aren't talking about a protected group?
A: No, it is not considered hate speech if a protected group is not involved. So if someone is making insults towards you personally that are not considered hate speech, use the Help & Safety Tool.
Q: Why wasn't the video or comment I reported to YouTube removed?
A: The YouTube Team reviews all videos flagged and reports made through the Help & Safety Tool. So if a video you have flagged, or comment you have reported hasn't been removed, it's because it doesn't violate our hate speech policies. We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view, and keep in mind that not everything that is mean or insulting is considered hate speech.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait, you have to be offending someone by saying something about their "race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity". What about defamation? Isn't that wrong? What about lying or misrepresenting information? Shouldn't we be entitled to decide what is "hate" or "hateful" and not have it defined by law? I consider anything that is written to destroy Jackson's legacy as hate and no one will convince me otherwise.
YouTube says they believe in free speech. Thus, I have the right to say their rules and system for reporting slander/libel (or "hate") are pure shit. I believe in free speech, but as with everything there is a point where that freedom should not encroach upon other peoples' freedom, livelihood, or legacy whether they are alive or deceased. Take for example, people are not allowed to make death threats against the president of the United States. Yet, there are groups like this being allowed to persist concerning President Obama:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/28/facebook-group-praying-fo_n_555227.html
I would not be shocked if every member of this group, regardless of it being over 1,000,000 people, now have an FBI files on them. It is not hard to know who is or is not a member of that group and if one entity knows and is keeping tallies, it is the US government. This could even be dubbed as a death threat by some considering the name of the group is " DEAR LORD, THIS YEAR YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTOR, PATRICK SWAYZIE. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTRESS, FARAH FAWCETT. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE SINGER, MICHAEL JACKSON. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, MY FAVORITE PRESIDENT IS BARACK OBAMA. AMEN." It is one thing to disagree with the president, even hate him, but to wish for his death? That is going too far.
What is Facebook's stance to group?
"Facebook's procedure for dealing with potentially offensive groups is pretty murky. Facebook has stated in the past that it takes seriously the free speech of its groups, even potentially offensive ones: A number of Facebook groups praising Joe Stack, the man who crashed a small plane into a government building in February, are still alive and well."
Joe Stack's actions are not anywhere close to a group asking for Obama's death. Get real, people. That is not comparing apples to apples.
Compare what is occurring to Jackson on YouTube (which ultimately will affect his family, including his children someday) to this news article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/us/07nurses.html?pagewanted=1&emc=eta1
Nurse Anne Mitchell found herself facing TEN YEARS in prison for doing what is deemed a responsibility of her job: notifying the state medical board that she felt a doctor was committing malpractice. Even nurse Vickilyn Galle found herself facing charges (that were later dropped) for merely helping type up the letter that went to the State Board. Dr. Rolando G. Arafiles Jr. claimed he was being harassed and abused by these nurses because he was reported by them to be investigated yet he had committed various acts of malpractice before and had current and previous sanctions taken upon his license including restrictions placed on his license due to issues at a weight-loss clinic. No one called him a molester--his medical competency was merely put into question--yet he is allowed to sue and claim harassment and abuse while Jackson cannot?
Tell me, how is a nurse who did her job and tried to protect the lives of patients being tortured with the possibility of TEN YEARS IN PRISON when people are dutifully attacking someone like Jackson on a daily basis and it is okay? Why is there this double-standard? There should NOT be a double-standard and something needs to be done NOW.
YouTube appears to be more concerned with copyright infringement than preventing the defamation of people's name, whether they are Jackson or not. However, my main concern is Jackson. I know the artist Prince blocks a majority of his videos from being placed on YouTube due to copyrights yet videos that continue to defame Jackson are okay and being viewed my thousands of people, most of whom likely have no clue whether or not to believe Jackson was or was not innocent of the allegations that were firmly-established extortion attempts. Let's not forget that Michael Jackson was found NOT GUILTY of ALL charges brought against him in 2005. The accusations should have stopped then and there--PERIOD. There is a reason for that verdict, regardless of what some idiots say who enjoy spewing false information that is fueled by hate and sheer ignorance.
For more information regarding these extortion attempts, which is exactly what they were, please become familiar with the following books:
Aphrodite Jones' "Conspiracy"
Geraldine Hughes' "Redemption"
I will not hesitate to write a letter, gather signatures, and start a campaign against YouTube and all other entities that are promoting this kind of distribution of information. I enjoy YouTube and have a membership with them, but something needs to be done to get the message to them to stop allowing their site to be a harboring ground of hate and defamation. Something needs to be done NOW. I wish Jackson's family would sue every single individual or entity that continues to promote this kind of defamation. If I had such power invested in me, I would sue without hesitation. Enough is enough. I have not even bothered to mention all the books that have been published about Jackson that are nothing more than venomous tales that people have created to earn a name for themselves while getting paid, too. People , WAKE UP and stop trusting everything fed to you. As Benjamin Franklin once said, "believe none of what you hear and half of what you see." Granted, that was before the internet. I would say now, believe none of what you hear or see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
