Does Michael Jackson belong at WDW?

[wizards8507]

A lovely construction... In two successive sentences you contradict yourself perfectly "you are innocent" followed immediately by saying that acquittal doesn't prove it. Acquittal does have to prove it. It is a fact until disproven.

Why can't you accept the most basic tenet of your U.S. legal system... Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

I accept that tenet WITHIN the legal system, and within that system it's the most important principle to protect liberty. "Innocent"--meaning not convicted--until proven guilty. In that context, "innocent" is much different than "didn't do it."

Like I said, the court needs proof beyond a reasonable doubt but I do not.

OJ was "innocent" but he "did it."

 

[wizards8507]

Throw the innocent/guilty crap out of this discussion.

We're not talking about whether Captain EO belongs in jail....we're talking about whether Captain EO belongs in Disney.


To that end, the court of public opinion rules......


the law is the lowest level of moral standard.....if you want your theme-park the play to the lowest common denominator, go to Six Flags....

They don't understand. These are the people who think "freedom of speech" means your company can't restrict what you say on your corporate e-mail account. Certain standards are set by the government and the government is held to those standards. The opinions and standards put forth by individuals and private companies are independent of these standards.

 

[Timekeeper]

Correcting a few misstatements of law...

Do your research.

Okay. This is not a law discussion board, but I would be happy to help clarify some of your misstatements so that others may be privy to accurate information.

Libel only applies to media (published works, broadcast, etc.)

False. :brick:

Non-media entities/individuals can also be liable for libel. For all intents and purposes, the term libel merely refers to a defamatory statement made in a fixed medium, most commonly a written communication. It is distinguished from slander, a defamatory assertion expressed in a transitory form, which most of us associate with oral speech. Our daily experiences lead us to assume that libel applies to the media, which is most often the case, but media-as-publisher is not a prerequisite for a libel cause of action.

Since libel is a tort (i.e., would require a lawsuit, not a criminal trial), burden of proof would be on Michael Jackson's estate.

False. :brick:

(Assuming, of course, that the plaintiff is not deceased) See Florida Statutes, 836.01. Punishment for libel - Any person convicted of the publication of a libel shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

"Truth" is an absolute defense against defamation in any form.

False. :brick:

Truth, alone, may not suffice as the "absolute defense" that you suggest. See Florida Constitution Art. I, § 4. "In all criminal prosecutions and civil actions for defamation the truth may be given in evidence. If the matter charged as defamatory is true and was published with good motives, the party shall be acquitted or exonerated."

In other words, they would have to PROOVE that he DIDN'T assault any children to win the suit.

False. :brick:

You appear to be citing old law. Sticking with the MJ scenario, who lived in California, the burden of proving that the statements are true rests squarely on the shoulders of the defendant (the person who made the defamatory statement). See Lipman v. Brisbane Elementary School Dist. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 224, 233. See also, Cal Code Civ Proc 461. This makes sense, if you think about the term, truth as a defense.

So what did wizards8507 leave out that makes most of this legal doctrine moot (other than the fact that MJ has passed away)? Defamation only applies to statements of fact, not opinion. That's why a food/movie critic cannot be sued for defamation for describing a restaurant/film as "horrible," "disgusting," "awful," etc. Most of the comments floating around here (this message board) appear to be statements of opinion. Any legal discussion on this issue really ought to begin with the fact-opinion dichotomy.

I love when the uneducated spout legal jargon.

I couldn't agree more. :sohappy:

 

[SOLISIMO]

I think the movie is safer than having the real "thing" inside Disney....

 

[Krack]

Why can't you accept the most basic tenet of your U.S. legal system... Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

It's just that, the most basic tenet of the US legal system. It's of utmost value to the United States government and its accused. It's virtually meaningless to everyone else. In other words, just because the United States government (or a state government, or a county government) couldn't prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" to a handful of jurors that a particular person committed a particular crime - utilizing all the procedures of the criminal code and the decisions of the judge or magistrate - does not mean everyone else in the world has to acquiesce to that result.

MJ was found "innocent" in a court of law? Good for him, the government can't punish him. It has no bearing what so ever on me (and everyone else) formulating my own opinion based on the available information and evidence. And that's just what I've done - I think he was a child molester. There's nothing I can do about that aside from stating my opinion every time his name is mentioned; so that is what I choose to do.

The man was the best performer of his generation. He was also, by all accounts, someone who did a lot of charitable work on behalf of children. Unfortunately, for me, that doesn't make up for his despicable behavior (the extent of which we'll never fully know).

I accept that tenet WITHIN the legal system, and within that system it's the most important principle to protect liberty. "Innocent"--meaning not convicted--until proven guilty. In that context, "innocent" is much different than "didn't do it."

Like I said, the court needs proof beyond a reasonable doubt but I do not.

He just said it shorter (and better) than I did.

 

[wizards8507]

Non-media entities/individuals can also be liable for libel. For all intents and purposes, the term libel merely refers to a defamatory statement made in a fixed medium, most commonly a written communication. It is distinguished from slander, a defamatory assertion expressed in a transitory form, which most of us associate with oral speech. Our daily experiences lead us to assume that libel applies to the media, which is most often the case, but media-as-publisher is not a prerequisite for a libel cause of action.

I said "media" not "the media." Big difference. My definition agrees with yours.

(Assuming, of course, that the plaintiff is not deceased) See Florida Statutes, 836.01. Punishment for libel - Any person convicted of the publication of a libel shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

This is correct. I was mistaken.

Regardless, much of this is thrown out the window when the plaintiff is a public figure. Consider New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964). In Sullivan, the plaintiff, a police official, claimed that false allegations about him appeared in the New York Times, and sued the newspaper for libel. The Supreme Court balanced the plaintiff's interest in preserving his reputation against the public's interest in freedom of expression in the area of political debate. It held that a public official alleging libel must prove actual malice in order to recover damages. The Court declared that the First Amendment protects open and robust debate on public issues even when such debate includes "vehement, caustic, unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." A public official or other plaintiff who has voluntarily assumed a position in the public eye must prove that defamatory statements were made with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of whether they were false.

 

[Dads 2 Boys]

There needs to be more choices as neither option applies to my thinking on the subject.

Controversy aside, I don't see EO being a good fit or a step in the right direction. It's more like a step backward. And the better question is: Would EO be back in the parks today if MJ was still alive? I think not. And that's exactly the reason I don't understand why EO is back now. It's a cheap milking of the public interest that arose from a person's death. No arguing that. :shrug: And it just feels wrong. :lookaroun

I agree 100%. It's a joke that upon his death, he turned into an American icon. While he may have been @ one time, the despicable things he (allegedly....:lol did completely changes that. If one truly thinks that he is innocent, you are crazy (and probably thinks OJ was innocent too).

Michael Jackson doesn't belong in Disney at all nor does this 80's attraction. Let's move forward and stretch technology....not rehab something.

 

[Vince3]

I'm kinda torn on this.I can respect MJ as a performer,but not as a quality person.Since EO is in a family theme park,I would have to go with no.

 

[DisneyNut2007]

Until WDW builds a cemetery I am going to say no. MJ, or any other dead celebrity for that matter, should not be allowed in WDW.

That's the same thing as saying that their ghosts shouldn't be allowed to visit the parks. :lookaroun

All that aside, I also voted "Yes", but feel that this is just another one of many totally unncessary threads that I hope the Admins will close and delete sooner than later.

 

[DisneyNut2007]

How many children think the characters in costumes are real?

The vast majority of them!

 

[Bubb@]

I voted no.

From the minute I heard about the return of EO, I just didn't get it. It will be interesting to see how popular it is and how long it lasts.

 

[unkadug]

From the minute I heard about the return of EO, I just didn't get it. It will be interesting to see how popular it is and how long it lasts.

I too voted NO.

It is distasteful to capitalize on someones death.

I find it in extremely bad taste to capitalize on MJ's death. If it was such a "great" attraction, then why wait until he dies to bring it back.

And I STILL cannot separate the man from his music.

 

[Timekeeper]

Consider New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964). ... A public official or other plaintiff who has voluntarily assumed a position in the public eye must prove that defamatory statements were made with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of whether they were false.

Sullivan is a great first-year-torts case on the issue of defamation, and will surely be found in any wikipedia-type article on the topic. But there are a vast array of considerations beyond what appears to be straightforward jurisprudence. For example, the question of whether a ... article is written or published with malicious motive or otherwise is, generally speaking, a question of fact to be determined by the jury.

Similarly, what constitutes reckless disregard for one jury might be viewed as mere negligence by another jury. Maybe the members of this board who can definitely and in good faith state that MJ was a child molester have relied on a source of information that the rest of us are not privy to. I just hope that "source" is something other than grocery store tabloids. To state "he was arrested and charged with" is a fact. To state that "he did it," without more, may be viewed by some as reckless.

There is, after all, a reason for why news broadcasters always preface descriptions of non-convicted defendants as "alleged robber," or "alleged shooter," "congressman's alleged adulteress" etc. Sullivan or not, they know that affirmatively pointing the finger of guilt just isn't worth the potential liability. A lot of members on this board fail to show such restraint.

 

[Edeyore]

I currently put the "yeses" in the lead. The Captain EO movie is funny, really corny, it has some good music, (some that was not heard anywhere but at Disney when Captain EO first came out.), with some good 3D. It is an attraction that was made by someone that is now dead. Wow, sort of like a number of the scenes on the Great Movie Ride. Sometimes things can be overthought.

 

[wizards8507]

Sullivan is a great first-year-torts case on the issue of defamation, and will surely be found in any wikipedia-type article on the topic. But there are a vast array of considerations beyond what appears to be straightforward jurisprudence. For example, the question of whether a ... article is written or published with malicious motive or otherwise is, generally speaking, a question of fact to be determined by the jury.

Similarly, what constitutes reckless disregard for one jury might be viewed as mere negligence by another jury. Maybe the members of this board who can definitely and in good faith state that MJ was a child molester have relied on a source of information that the rest of us are not privy to. I just hope that "source" is something other than grocery store tabloids. To state "he was arrested and charged with" is a fact. To state that "he did it," without more, may be viewed by some as reckless.

There is, after all, a reason for why news broadcasters always preface descriptions of non-convicted defendants as "alleged robber," or "alleged shooter," "congressman's alleged adulteress" etc. Sullivan or not, they know that affirmatively pointing the finger of guilt just isn't worth the potential liability. A lot of members on this board fail to show such restraint.

I apologize if my legal knowledge is cursory. My degree is in accounting, not law. The point remains that the poster who appeared paranoid that posters on this thread would be criminally liable for defamation was incorrect.

 

[Timekeeper]

I apologize if my legal knowledge is cursory. My degree is in accounting, not law. The point remains that the poster who appeared paranoid that posters on this thread would be criminally liable for defamation was incorrect.

That's true. When it comes to this scenario (message board rants about a celebrity who has passed away), every defamation-related hurdle in the book stands between the speech and any potential liability. No worries.

Rather than fear any legal liability, I think that some individuals are morally hesitant to "cast stones" without having sat in the grand jury room, or in the trial courtroom, or at the negotiation table, etc. while others are more apt to draw their own conclusions based on what is essentially hearsay. There's a reason for why hearsay is not admissible in court (absent an exception) as evidence - because it's not reliable. I, for one, hesitate to pass judgment on someone based on unreliable information. I can think someone's behavior is "out of the ordinary," but I do not have any basis on why which to affirmatively declare another man's guilt. :shrug:

I'm reminded of the Salem witch trials, but alas, I digress.

 

[mp2bill]

Until WDW builds a cemetery I am going to say no. MJ, or any other dead celebrity for that matter, should not be allowed in WDW.

Hahahahaha! Maybe he can be buried in the Haunted Mansion cemetery.

 

[wizards8507]

That's true. When it comes to this scenario (message board rants about a celebrity who has passed away), every defamation-related hurdle in the book stands between the speech and any potential liability. No worries.

Rather than fear any legal liability, I think that some individuals are morally hesitant to "cast stones" without having sat in the grand jury room, or in the trial courtroom, or at the negotiation table, etc. while others are more apt to draw their own conclusions based on what is essentially hearsay. There's a reason for why hearsay is not admissible in court (absent an exception) as evidence - because it's not reliable. I, for one, hesitate to pass judgment on someone based on unreliable information. I can think someone's behavior is "out of the ordinary," but I do not have any basis on why which to affirmatively declare another man's guilt. :shrug:

For the most part I agree. I cannot hand down judgment on an act of which I have no proof. My decision comes from Jackson's own admission that the had sleepovers with children. I make no claim to his guilt or innocence of sexual misconduct, but his admitted behavior is, IMO, deviant in nature at the very least.

Hanging a baby over a balcony (caught on video) is another issue entirely.

I'm reminded of the Salem witch trials, but alas, I digress.

Maybe we should have a group read of The Crucible. "I have given you my soul; leave me my name!"

 

[Timekeeper]

For the most part I agree. I cannot hand down judgment on an act of which I have no proof. My decision comes from Jackson's own admission that the had sleepovers with children. I make no claim to his guilt or innocence of sexual misconduct, but his admitted behavior is, IMO, deviant in nature at the very least.

You bring up a good point that's been apparent throughout most of these discussions; a point that - potentially - makes the original poll in this thread a little bit misleading. It seems to me that people can fall into more than just two camps, just as how forcing someone to choose between the labels of Democrat or Republican can prove problematic. For example, there who might believe:

(A) MJ is guilty of the crimes charged, or
(B) MJ acted in a morally wrong way but may not be criminally liable, or
(C) MJ is "wacko" but undecided as to criminal guilt and moral culpability, or
(D) MJ may have acted wrongly but if he did it was through no fault of his own due to the psychological effects of his own upbringing, or
(E) MJ did nothing morally or criminally wrong and merely lacks some common sense, or
(F) MJ did nothing wrong and our perceptions of him as provided by the media are misinformed, etc.

And determining which camp a person falls into might facilitate an understanding of their opposition to (or support of) Captain EO returning to the parks.

Maybe message board members should be forced to select which MJ camp that they belong to the next time they log in, and that info will be openly displayed by their username.

Just kidding. :hammer:

 

[stlbobby]

I'm reminded of the Salem witch trials, but alas, I digress.

I don't remember any of the accused witches doling out a $20 million settlement.