Why was Michael Jackson stigmatised so harshly?

[Aractus]

The issue of stigmatization aside, for people saying they're unsure of whether he was a child molester, you should read the list of items the police found at his house:

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/06/...l-jackson/

I used to think he was innocent, then that list comes out, and now I'm convinced he probably did molest some children. Its hard to justify (IMO) that list of items with the fact he regularly had young children over to sleep, and the fact that there were a number of allegations during his life.

Right, let's take this a whole step further. In 1969 Denmark became the first, and only country, to legalise all forms of pornography. Companies like ColorClimax produced traditional porn, others produced child pornography - legally. Denmark realised their mistake and banned child pornography production effective 1/1/1980. However by that time it is estimated that at least 10-20% of Danes (IIRC) had viewed child porn at some time in the 1970's.

You wouldn't claim that everyone who accessed the said material was a child predator would you?

The material mentioned in the link is not child pornography. It is true that it can be used to groom children, I'm not disputing that, but there's actually nothing wrong with Michael simply enjoying reading the magazines that have unclothed children in it. It's not illegal, it's not morally wrong. It's not a sexualised content. In fact, the content could just as easily be used as evidence against child molestation: where are the child abuse images that MJ would have had if he was a predator? It's hard to argue that MJ wouldn't have child abuse images if he was a predator, given that the vast majority of people who are convicted of child sex offences are found to possess child abuse images as well.