|
I don't understand articles like this at all. OK, there is significant evidence that he's a pedophile... how does that make him different from any other pedophile?
Infact, wouldn't "There's an obvious pedophile living a few streets away from you" be more important and news worthy than "There's an obvious pedophile who's music you might have listened to"?
Then there's the people who take it too seriously, and even refuse to listen to his music because of it. Surely you would listen to music because of the quality of it, and it's entertainment value, rather than the artist's sense of morality? I mean, look at the rappers: alot of them do drugs, some have even been convicted for assault. And yet people still listen to them. How is this any different? It is a musician (or musicians) commiting heinous crimes - debates about illicit drugs aside, who could argue that assault isn't heinous?
|