View Single Post
Old 30th June 2016, 04:00 PM   #354
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Except that the prosecution and the person who collected it and was trained to know, both say that it wasn't.

What it was was a collection of photos created by an artist that had been displayed in a galley and subsequently were published in a book.

This was the same as many of the other books listed.

If it had been a book filled with Renaissance Paintings of cherubs, Greek gods, and other nude and naked people would you think that this was suspicious? If not, then why would more modern versions of this sort of art be so suspicious, especially when these books are fully available to the public and the images had been displayed in galleries around the world?
But it wasn't Renaissance paintings. It had sexualized depictions of children. I know, it technically fell under the category of art. The book's legal status doesn't have any bearing on whether MJ got off on it. I think he did.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top