The controversy about certain singers, should their music be censored/banned?

It never should happen

Only if those include the word rape

View attached image.

I'm a bit mixed. Michael Jackson is dead. It makes no difference to him whether you like his music or not, and censorship is generally retarded, so play away. On the other hand, R. Kelly is still alive, and is still profiting from his music, so in that case we shouldn't buy his music, so as not to let him continue with his behavior.

I wonder if those same people calling for a boycott would ban Homer's Odyssey or Illiad, because the ancient Greeks were into sodomizing youngsters.

His music never hurt anyone, and it is amazing music that has held up to this day. I grew up listening to his early albums and those songs always take me back. I'll never stop listening to it for any reason. What good would it do to ban it? None. His music brought joy to people and still does.Yeah he obviously had some mental health issues, but the courts did find him innocent of any wrongdoing. I don't know if he did any those things or not, but it has nothing to do with his art either way. Besides he is gone now, let him rest.

I don't support banning things.

But at the same time, I don't think things should be left the same. I think you should be able to consume the media of someone who was a bad person.
Let's take R-Kelly for example. Some want to ban his music right now. While I think he did commit the crimes he's accused of, I don't think we have the right to punish a man who hasn't been convicted of a crime. If he is convicted, I think first of all, all proceeds from his music should go to charities that aim to prevent the crime he was convicted of. The length should be a minimum of one year (to circumvent the celebrities that get off scot-free after a conviction), up to the length of their prison sentence (longer for certain convictions, like child molestation and other heinous crimes. (Mainly ones that are committed against the defenseless, like children, the disabled, the elderly and animals)
After that, I think it's a bit of a gray area. Personally, I think it's fine if a public entity airs the media by that person. But I also think there should be a warning for it. So, if Robert Kelly was convicted, then his music should have a disclaimer before/after (or both) that R-Kelly was convicted of whatever he was convicted of, where the proceeds of this song go to currently and that it could be said in a blunt way. So you don't have to say "Child molestation", you can say "He raped a defenseless child and the man's a pedophile who shouldn't breathe any air". The way the disclaimer's said can be dealer's choice.

Mein Kampf is sold in Germany after a long time of the book being banned. Now all sales help the victims of the author and there are disclaimers everywhere about Hitler and his rhetoric.

My opinion might change a bit, but overall, I think absolute censorship doesn't benefit anyone.

These days, many people seem to confuse an individual's actions with his or her character, and that is an extreme position to take. Even an evil person is capable of doing something good, but having done so does not make him or her a good person. Similarly, a good persion may commit an evil act, but having done so does not mean he or she is now evil. The point is that the evil nature of an individual is insufficient reason to abandon whatever good he or she may have done. If the guy who invented ice-cream turned out to be a mass-murderer, would we all refuse to eat ice-cream? That would be nonsensical. Severe crimes beg severe punishments, but nothing justifies allowing hate to rule our behavior. That path leads to the very evil we denounce.

"Hate the evil a man does, not the man himself."

P.S.(Banning is not very effective as a form of censorship.)

I don't know who "f.e. Michael Jackson" is. Do you mean "e.g. Michael Jackson"?

You have to imagine a scenario such as an author or director being revealed to be a serial killer / rapist or something. They could have made amazing art and while knowing that may change your perception for it to be widely be congratulated before hand it would have to be good and that cant be changed by ones actions. Iv never been a fan or MJ but whether or not R Kelly did what hes accused of the Ignition remix will always be a tune.

I chose "other" because neither options seemed satisfactory to me. I can't separate the music from the artist, because it's their creation; it's basically their essence. However, I also don't think their past music should be banned, because the music has no blame.

For example, I used to be a huge Lostprophets fan, but ever since the news about Ian Watkins came out I haven't listened to any of their songs. The reason is because no matter how much I enjoyed their music, I can't get it over my conscience to listen to the voice of a baby rapist* plain and simple.

*He has actually been convicted, so I can say that. MJ for example is a lot more complicated.

Normally I wouldn't agree with bans on art, however... If he ends up being proven guilty of rape, I wouldn't give two shits if they banned all his stuff. That said, if they didn't remove it all, I wouldn't care either, I just wouldn't listen to it.

i feel bad for Liam Neeson though. he tryed to tell a story about how racism is bad and people took it the wrong way. i also feel if some try to do thing to make up for it i think they should maybe later be forgiven. i'm not religious but penance is better than saying sorry for real forgiveness.

anyone who knew anything about R Kelly should not be surprised. everyone wants to be a pimp but then people cry when you do pimp shit. (not saying it ok but he didn't really hide)

Dunno about banning, but people are judgemental either way. They always judge others for what they like or hate. So you can't escape it. "What? You are listening to music created by the murderer and church burner? You disgust me!"
You can get stoned to death for your opinions, so nothing matters...

Thing is, I don't believe the Jackson stuff given the history of those two accusers for telling lies under oath. It's easy to attack a dead man who isn't around to defend himself. He was found innocent in a court of law while he was alive.

Great strategy. Wait til they're dead, then gain some fame off a documentary accusing them of shit. I hope Jackson's children sue them.

I'm not a massive fan of Jackson. I appreciate his music. However, I think guilty until proven innocent should never be a valid strategy.

As for Liam Neeson, you would have to grow up in a war-torn country, witnessing violence and bigotry at every turn before you could possibly understand where he was coming from. He was being honest, and admitted to how ashamed he felt for those actions. I live on the South of the border, and I can't even imagine what life was like for people living in the North during The Troubles. I do remember the violence on the news when I was a child. I was born in the 80s, so I definitely remember the stories on the news in the 90s.

I did talk to a guy from Northern Ireland many years ago and he said that he was constantly looking over his shoulder and changing his surname depending on who he was talking to. If he was talking to a group of republicans or catholics, he had a native Irish name. If he was talking to a group of unionists or protestants, he had a Scottish or British name. He was terrified of running into the wrong person, the one that might maim or kill him for being from the wrong side of the tracks.

Northern Ireland is no longer like this today, but THAT is where Liam Neeson grew up. Yes, the "black bastard" comment was racist, but it could just as easily have been a derogatory term for someone from the wrong side of the tracks. I won't bring up any of those names here because it's in the past. It makes no difference whether the person was black or white. In that case, any of a number of bigotted terms may have been used depending on what group the person belonged to. What matters is that he was sorry for the way he thought and behaved. He didn't have to tell that story, but he did and he told it to bring awareness to something. No one would have been any wiser had he kept it to himself. People are so fucking sick nowadays. Eventhough the man was apologetic for his actions back then ...or would-be actions, they wanted to basically lynch him and destroy his career over it.

Should it be censored/banned? No
Do companies have the right to say "We don't want to associate with this, so we're not playing their music anymore"? Yes.

I feel like a distinction needs to be drawn between radio stations not playing their songs and their music actually being banned such that it is illegal to possess and listen to.

Banning music? Absolutely not! I'm against banning any and all art.

Radio stations / spotify / whatever not wanting to carry an artist or song anymore? Go right ahead. As long as I can still listen to it on my own, I don't care. Heck, growing up, the radio stations refused to play the bands I was listening to anyway. The first time I heard one of my favorite bands on the radio, I couldn't believe it.

You seem to be really focused on the music part.
Musically, both R.Kelly and MJ are/were very talented people, and created amazing works of Art.
Personally, they both are accused of horrible things. And people who believe the accusations, do not want R.Kelly and MJ to continue enjoying their fame and fortune.
So the reason for banning the music, is not because it's bad music or it is somehow supposed to corrupt you. Their reasons are:

1. So these people don't get our money (i.e. royalties from Radio stations and such for playing their music)
2. So these people don't get fame. Obviously, they are both very famous individuals, and many people know who they are (and even admire them). But if we stop playing their music, and mentioning their name (except in the context of their crimes), people will start to forget who they are, and instead of being famous, they will become infamous.

Sure, and let's ban Wagner too. Hitler loves his music. </sarcasm>

Meh. An exercize in PR that only goes to show censorship is alive and well as long as it makes brand look good for the indiscriminate masses.

What's next? Ban movies from people who voted for someone you don't like? Ban red coloring from cupcakes because it's a Communist color? Ban games that have rainbows because they're gay?

I don't condone what these guys are accused of (and I have no idea if it's true, let alone an interest in finding out because there's just so much creepiness I can take) but it has nothing to do with their music. If they were talking about banning a song that was about molesting kids, that would be worth discussing, and not necessarily a slam dunk either, but this is just witch hunting for the benefit of looking good.

Yeah, good idea, and, while we're at it, let's just ban everything I simply don't like too. Next step is me being elected to global dictator wise and fair supreme leader of the free world, I'll protect you from anything bad which to avoid you'd have to use your own grey cells for. Sounds good, eh :). Oh, and let's ban everything ever invented by a person with a despicable character or guilty of some heinous crime too, let's show them for being nasty. See y'all later in the cave, I'm at the fire.

Dumb people.

When you ban a song, you stop others from making money (co-writers, etc). Artists aren't the only ones making money off it. Think before you ban.

How anyone could think censorship of ANY kind could be a good thing is beyond me.