IMPORTANT POLL regarding Michael Jackson's kiddie books

Dear readers,

It is known that I have access to and/or own all three of Michael Jackson's books featuring nude children that were confiscated by police from the raid of Neverland Ranch in 1993:

• The Boy, a photographic essay, edited by Georges St. Martin and Ronald C. Nelson
• Boys Will Be Boys, edited by Georges St. Martin and Ronald C. Nelson
• In Search of Young Beauty by Charles DuBois Hodges

Because of the nature of these books--effectively deemed 'child erotica' when owned by pedophiles and preferential molesters--they contain underage nudity in an surreptitiously sexualized context.

This includes genitalia and pubescent female breasts.

To note, however, these books are not child pornography but technically "art books"; as such, it is not a violation of Blogger content policies to show them.

My question to everyone who visits this blog regularly is how I should go about showing them. 

As a researcher and a proponent of free speech, I personally believe these books should be shown uncensored. However, because of the fact they explicitly show the body parts of underage children in a sexualized context, I would also be willing to censor the photographs in conformation with reader taste.

So, can everyone reading--whether you comment or not--please vote in the following poll regarding this issue!

UPDATE! 8-17-2010:

The voting is now CLOSED and the results are in:

The first choice was the winner out of 39 TOTAL VOTES although it was no landslide...

Voting is closed due to receipt of Boys Will Be Boys.

Take note of the handwriting (and the sheets)--I am not a male pedophile, as I have been accused of being, but a FEMALE.

Because of the graphic nudity within, I have decided to practice CENSORSHIP of this particular title. The photos from The Boy and In Search of Young Beauty, specifically the latter title, will be done selectively, as there is a higher price for one's head if children's privates are shown on the web, in comparison to breasts.

Thank you, everyone, for your participation. Boys Will Be Boys will, again, be censored in accordance to the voting results!

NOTE: The voting in this poll will be open until Friday, August 19. Wednesday, August 17.

Aaron Carter round-up: boys, booze, and blow

Although this Aaron Carter story is technically very, very old news, it has gotten little airplay, so little, in fact, that the magnitude of its revelations could possibly disappear from Michael Jackson history altogether if not canonized--without spin--somewhere on the Internet. For this reason, I have decided to write about it.

It was at the close of June that media reports surfaced alleging former child pop entertainer, Aaron Carter, had made very telling statements about his friend, Michael Jackson.

In fact, if his statements are considered true and reliable, they tend to lend yet more weight to the reasonable suspicion that the late King of Pop engaged in inappropriate behavior with his youthful male companions. The Australian offshoot of OK! magazine claimed Aaron—a recovering addict—told freelance journalist Daphne Barak that Michael Jackson gave him alcohol and cocaine when he was just fifteen-years-old.

Naturally, such revelations about Michael Jackson would stir his fans into a frenzy, as Aaron's anecdotes erode the 'innocent angel'/'benign Peter Pan' mythos to which they desperately and rabidly cling.

Matter of fact, frenzy seems to minimize the absolute panic of the fans; with Michael Jackson being dead only two years, they did not expect a young man of clout to allege such improper conduct on the part of their idol. But there Aaron Carter was, chipping away at this seemingly impenetrable shield of armor Michael had picked up following his untimely demise.  

The next step taken by Michael Jackson fans was to deny the factuality of the OK! magazine story, calling the publication a 'tabloid' that had either misquoted Aaron Carter or fabricated those quotes altogether. Daphne Barak fared no better and was, too, implicated in somehow using Aaron to get a good story off Michael Jackson's name. Because it is well-known that Aaron had defended Michael during his second child molestation fiasco (going so far as to claim Michael "really did" like women and, therefore, it was unlikely—perhaps impossible—that he could have been a molester of young boys), this was an understandable explanation for such salacious claims.

Surely, a Michael Jackson friend and defender—accurate descriptors for Aaron Carter—would never say anything to damage Michael's already 'abused' and tarnished reputation!

It is worth noting that the original story emerged in mid-June and went unnoticed until that month's final week. Aaron Carter remained mum about the story as it circulated the Internet and it was only after much heat from angry Jackson fans that he 'clarified'—after mysteriously erasing his original Twitter account of all messages—that the whole story was completely untrue and he'd never been given any kind of alcohol or drugs by Michael Jackson.

Caving to the pressure of Michael Jackson's rabid defenders to deny a story that made Michael look, at the very least, wildly irresponsible was ultimately Aaron Carter's downfall. As soon as he claimed he had never made any inculpatory statements about Michael's behavior, essentially turning journalist Daphne Barak into a liar, she released video clips of their conversations. With proof on her side, Barak's defense effectively shifted the blame for these very disturbing quotes back onto Aaron Carter.

At this point, I believe it is quite obvious Aaron Carter said what he'd said about Michael Jackson. Additionally, there should be no question—although, bizarrely, there seems to be—of whom he was discussing during his interviews with Daphne Barak: it was Michael Jackson. However, it is worth discussing what Aaron Carter's statements actually mean to the holistic and already sad Jackson saga.