Simpsons pulling episode with Michael Jackson from streaming/future box sets - Sensationalist Headlines

By the way, and yes this is related so let me set this up, I had a friend (that seems suspicious, I know, but I actually did) who, from the age of 13 until the age of 16/17, used to claim that she had had sex with her Maths teacher, a teacher that most of the girls found attractive. This was a teacher, a position of authority and responsibility over their students,, and this story first emerged at an impressionable age; the teacher definitely would've had the ability to manipulate said friend. As the years ticked by, the story developed more details and became more entrenched; it reached a point where not even the closest people could tell whether or not it was true. Long story short, more people heard this story, and the teacher got pulled out of school on suspicion of...you know. Majority of the school believes it, because this was a man with power, and said man had always been rather close to the girl (we'd also had a prior teacher uncovered as a sex offender - yeah my school was weird - so there was even more reason to believe it). Evidence existed. Nothing concrete, but enough to cause you to raise an eyebrow and think 'I wouldn't be surprised if he did'. Want to know how it ended? Girl admitted she lied about the entire thing for attention, and then tried to backpedal and claim it was true, only doing so when she was expelled. The worst part is that some students still think the teacher did it, and, though he was allowed to come back, his reputation has been permanently dragged been through the mud. He'll forever be seen in the 'but...what if?' state, which is ridiculous because the girl admitted to lying about it. Do you see how this correlates? People could try to argue 'He manipulated her into admitting she lied', but I knew this person, and we caught onto the holes in the story that were sewn over with emotionally-compelling tales (sound familiar?). 'No one can act that well'; the girl first started pushing the lie when she was 13, and she was damn good at lying. 'There were some indications! He always seemed flirty...' <- That was called being friendly, a trait that got twisted into perversion and used as evidence of 'ur a pedo'. 'But she knew details no one else would know' <-- Proved to be lies that were just a case of throwing shit at the dart board until you got somewhat close to bullseye. 'She had no motive'; Attention, and she got plenty of it. I bring this story up not to flex about having a fucking weird school, but because I can substitute details of what occurred at my school for parts of the 'MJ is pedo' argument. If someone were to make a documentary that was presented solely from the side of this girl, and presented it in an emotionally-compelling manner, used some sad music, brought up the iffy evidence, and made a point about how the teacher had the room to manipulate his supposed victim, you can guarantee that people would believe it. I'm not adamant about defending MJ because I'm a diehard fanboy, or because I just love internet arguments, but because I saw someone in my life, someone I actually liked as a teacher, get dragged through the mud simply because a girl decided she wanted a quick few minutes of fame, and she knew everyone would believe her because 'why would anyone lie? there's nothing to gain'. Also, the teacher had a girlfriend at the time, and I don't want to imagine them having to explain 'oh, I don't have work tomorrow; I've been accusing of grooming and having sexual relations with one of my students'. Apologies if this is considered off-topic, I think it's just worth pointing out that stuff like this doesn't just happen in the world of celebrities, nor does it always feature the FBI or dramatic court cases, and you'd be surprised how it sometimes plays out.

From what i understand when people refer to his "Bedroom" they're referring to an entire wing of Neverland Ranch that was Michaels, which was two stories and had multiple rooms inside of it, large enough for a family or two to stay in.

That video really illustrates how utterly absurd those arguments saying "Just watch it!" and "Would would they lie?" and all that are. I don't see how anyone can truly think that a documentary that would do something like edit a voice clip to give it an entirely different meaning that fits their narrative now they've left out the part that shows it's not what the documentary claims, is just trying to let these people tell their story and that's it. It is clearly not a fair, unbiased, trustworthy documentary, even without reading about the people involved in it.

I think it's in one of Razorfists videos? Maybe part 2. I remember specifically that it had a staircase.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLuyHWP_wnM Sad no one posted this yet, one of my favorite Simpsons moments getting removed is pretty sad. Fun Fact, while Michael Jackson did voicework for the episode, due to contractual reasons all singing parts were done by Kipp Lennon. Michael did however write Happy Birthday Lisa for the episode.

Just stopping by because I saw a ban on the events page, so I have no clue if this was already mentioned but, for people that are interested, and while I'd normally never ever recommend his videos, Rebeltaxi/Pan Pizza did a great coverage of the episode in one of his top 5 whatevers, talking about the above mentioned contractual issues. It's like 3 minutes long max and part of a bigger video, but it's fairly informative. From everything I've heard about MJ, he seems like a great person that made something great out of the shit that was handed to him, and psychological issues are absolutely not surprising. I hope that eventually this stuff can be cleared up, because I don't think it's fair to him that a majority of discussion pertaining to his history has to be specifically about the allegations. He was an amazing singer and did some great things for music.

I'd just like to say that although that video with the dude in sunglasses made some good points that directly related to and sourced material evidence, I don't think it's fair to harp on a documentary for being manipulative and then use a video of one of the most hyperbolic people I've ever seen. Like with all due respect that video just doesn't meet the standards that we're criticizing the documentary for not meeting. It's better -- it concerns itself with fact and evidence at its core -- but the way the argument is presented is so... unhelpful.

Simpsons writer (and the writer of the episode in question) Al Jean has spoken out as to why this specific episode was pulled. https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-simpsons-boss-al-jean-michael-jackson-used-the-show-to-groom-boys The bold is the interviewer, the quoted are his responses The very first episode of Season 3, “Stark Raving Dad,” featuring the voice of Michael Jackson made some news recently when it was revealed that you decided to remove the episode after watching the Jackson documentary Leaving Neverland. That must have been a difficult decision for you, seeing as you wrote it and it was your first episode at the reins. Yes. It wasn’t something that makes me happy. It’s something I agree with completely. What saddens me is, if you watch that documentary—which I did, and several of us here did—and you watch that episode, honestly, it looks like the episode was used by Michael Jackson for something other than what we’d intended it. It wasn’t just a comedy to him, it was something that was used as a tool. And I strongly believe that. That, to me, is my belief, and it’s why I think removing it is appropriate. I lose a little bit of money financially, it’s not something that’s great personally to lose one of the most successful things I ever did, but I totally think it’s the right move. I don’t believe in going through and making judgments on every guest star and saying “this one was bad, that one was bad,” but the episode itself has a false purpose, and that’s what I object to about it now. And the false purpose was what? I think it was part of what he used to groom boys. I really don’t know, and I should be very careful because this is not something I know personally, but as far as what I think, that’s what I think. And that makes me very, very sad.

This sounds like a bunch of bullshit as an excuse to pull the episode preemptively before any potential PR shitwave after that stupid documentary started all this up again and they get accused of something by twitter. I doubt it has anything to do with some sense of morality. Also he's dead.

Can we just pull the Simpsons from existence instead? thanks

What, is MJ gonna use this episode to groom people from the grave?

The Jackson Estate likely still gets residuals from the episode, so by pulling it they won't see another dime from The Simpsons.

They should've given that as a reason, then.

The emotional response buys more good press than the rational response. If they just came out and said "we're pulling it so they won't get any more money" I'm pretty sure they'd just be called petty assholes.

For any of the people in this thread who vehemently believe MJ to have been a molester i just want to ask what you think of the following audio recordings. https://twitter.com/7Dream7Child7/status/1090771472111620096

I know this thread is already dead. But. Watching this documentary. I know a lot of people are skeptical about the accusations and what not. I will say as a dude who's dealt with abuse. It's way too fucking real...

Way late I know, but what about the episode that had the throwaway gag that he was a street performer whose spot Bart accidentally took when Bart was trying to do magic tricks on the street for money? Will the 2 or 3 instances of him be just abruptly edited out? Will he be blurred and muted? Or will THAT be unchanged due to it presenting him negatively as a gag?

Well since FP is on the "MJ did nothing wrong" train. Going to show some actual evidence and shit that was brought up during the trials. This was the evidence presented during the 2005 Trial. Gathered in 2003 and 1993. http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/011805pltreqaseemd.pdf And before people go "But he was innocent in that trial". Most of the people who testified in that trial have now come out and admitted they were abused by MJ. Not realizing they've been gaslighted by him for countless years. Some pictures from that PDF https://puu.sh/D4anA.png https://puu.sh/D4ajU.png https://puu.sh/D4akg.png https://puu.sh/D4aoX.png Now please fucking explain to me how the fuck this evidence doesn't make MJ a child molestor... They found literal fucking pedophilia in his bedroom.

Did it ever occur to you that they changed their story for money? It was brought up in this thread a couple times. The fact is we don't know for sure what happened. There is no direct evidence that can prove him either innocent or guilty, just evidence that implies things, and statements for and against his innocence.

Did they really want that money? Or did MJ convince them it was just a "Misunderstanding" and the money is just to "Keep them quiet". I think people don't realize that the reason why nobody spoke up about this shit during 2005 is due to how brainwashed those people were by MJ's grooming and charisma. Most of the people who defended MJ during that 2005 trial now realize they've been manipulated for countless years. Or are able to come out now without being threatened cause their main abuser is currently 15 feet in the dirt. And no, they are not doing it for the sake of "Attention" or "For the money". Wade Robson. One of the two victims who was in the Documentary. Originally defended Michael Jackson during the trial. to the Point he honored Michael Jackson after he passed away. It wasn't until a few years later when Wade Robson became a father. He experienced multiple mental breakdowns, which finally made him realize that he was sexually abused during that time. Years of being gaslighted and groomed basically stopped him from realizing what exactly MJ did to him. And people often say "Well it's been ten years, who cares?" Even if MJ is a pedo or not. They deserve to come out and tell their story and their experiences. Someone's level of Stardom should not be a roadblock for these people. No matter how influential that person is. They deserve to speak.

I'm talking about the money they can get by spreading these stories now, not whatever money was paid to them by MJ. You're taking things they say as fact. Just because they claim they were being brainwashed doesn't mean that's actually what happened. Without hard evidence there is no way to be sure. Eyewitness accounts, even if they are from victims, have reliability issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony#Reliability Everything they're saying could be true. It could also be lies made up to cause controversy and sell stories. Without hard evidence we can't know anything for sure, and the trials that were held over these issues ended in a not guilty verdict for MJ. In my opinion, if this did happen, coming out and telling the whole world won't help them. Now people are debating the authenticity of their testimony and bringing up things that happened so long ago. That's not going to help them to process what happened at all. A better way to deal with this would be to deal with the effects of whatever happened on their minds so they can let it go and move on with their lives, in whatever capacity that is possible.

"Two of the three books confiscated during the house search in 1993 is what you will see most used against Jackson, as they included nude photographs of young boys. Often you will not find mentioned though that at least one of these books, entitled The Boy: A Photographic Essay (Georges St. Martin, Ronald C. Nelson, 1964), judging from the inscription in it, was a gift Jackson received from a fan. The inscription read: “To Michael: From your fan, “Rhonda” ♥ 1983, Chicago”. The other entitled Boys Will Be Boys (Georges St. Martin, Ronald C. Nelson, 1966), had an inscription in it by Jackson himself which shows what he saw in those pictures. It read: “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children, MJ. [12]” Since the two books are vintage books and sequels to each other it is possible that they both were gifts from the same fan who inscribed one of them. They contain pictures of boys in various situations by different photographers, including pictures taken during the filming of the 1963 Lord of the Flies movie. They do include nude photographs of children, but the photographs are not pornographic or sexual. They show the children in various non-sexual activities, playing, swimming etc. The third book, that was confiscated in 1993 In Search of Young Beauty: A Venture Into Photographic Art (Charles Du Bois Hodges, 1964) which contains both boys and girls, mostly dressed, but some nude or semi-nude. All three of these books are in the United States’ Library of Congress" has child pornography ever been found in Michael Jackson’s posse.. Again, this is all from a collection of over ten thousand books on photography and art. Michael Jackson was a hoarder. read the entire page, it goes over all the evidence in a clear manner

You know at this point i'm not going to argue. Even if i posted a pic of MJ literally raping a kid. Everyone will twist it as not being pedophilia. I give it about a few months until it becomes definitely concrete that MJ is a pedo. even to MJ supporters.

It's almost like doing to trial would of caused him to cancel the second half of a tour, Pissing off every single person he was in a business relationship with, losing 100s of Millions of dollars, and most importantly, pissing off half is fucking fanbase? And mind you it would only really be hush money if it was to stop a criminal court case. the Chandlers, even though they were well within the criminal statute of limitations, filed a civil lawsuit. (for the supposed defilement of their child???)

btw this aged beautifully https://youtu.be/tArmHN4j3qQ

What will change in a few months? The evidence you posted has been around for decades and is not incriminating. The documentary presents no new evidence, just a new testimony, complete with sharp editing and touching music. In a fair trial a testimony like this would be subject to a cross examination, but this is a documentary and does not pose anything contradictory to the testimonies. Like the fact that in Leaving Neverland Safechuck says he was abused in a New York hotel room during the 1989 Grammys despite the fact that the Grammys were in Los Angeles in 1989 and Jackson was not present for them. The New York Grammys that Jackson performed at happened in 1988, before Safechuck claimed he was first abused.

"I know the courts cleared him of all charges and no child pornography was ever found in the Jackson Estate, but this documentary tailor made to make me feel sad made me feel really certain that he's a pedophile!" this is all completely fucking ridiculous. The dude is dead. In the ground. Buried.

Seriously? People point out how you're wrong, and the 'evidence' you show is legitimately not child pornography. Then you just say if you don't take gospel as fact you must be some delusional MJ supporter. Throughout my life I've only enjoyed about 2 of his songs. I have always found him to look creepy, I mean for christ's sake, he looks like someone cosplaying Voldemort. Does this mean he is guilty? I don't know. The evidence as provided by decade long investigations, and thorough searches done by the FBI seem to conclude that no, he is not guilty. However, instead of looking at the evidence, you watch an emotionally charged documentary, which pulls your strings with music, imagery, and editing. Now the evidence doesn't matter and he MUST be guilty. I've seen the documentary, it's powerful and very emotional. It is also exactly like many other documentaries designed in exactly the same way to play your feelings over facts.

and if you posted a picture of MJ literally raping a kid I wouldn't argue with it, because it's direct evidence, unlike non-pornographic books and magazines the reason I argue against the accusers is because the evidence isn't there, which is the same reason he was acquitted. If he were guilty there would be hard evidence like semen DNA stains from the accusers on his property, condoms with the accuser's blood on them, audio or video tapes of MJ acting in a abusive manner to kids, etc. There is none, after two unnanounced raids, a 300 page FBI report, and decades of public scrutiny.

Btw The families and the victims in the documentary receive no compensation and money from the film. I just want to point that out to disprove the rumors they did it for "Attention".