To begin with, being called a paedophile is perhaps the worst thing one can say about a person. I do not make these claims lightly, but as proof I offer an interview with Moby from 2000 in a UK magazine called "Making Music". It was at the time given away free in guitar stores, etc. In that interview, Moby said he felt sorry for Gary Glitter, and felt that "artists" such as Glitter and himself should be able to unrestrictedly access these sickening images, as they would view them from an "artistic" perspective. I am still shocked at how someone can view images of children being raped and abused from an "artistic perspective".
This question will undoubtetly cause offence with some people, as Moby is successful and famous. But so were Jonathan King, Pete Townhend and Michael Jackson, etc. No-one should use fame and fortune as a soapbox for paedophilia.
Refence: Making Music magazine (UK), December 2000 issue.
2006-11-08 05:14:29 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Celebrities
Let me reiterate in case I have not made myself abundantly clear. I am aware of defamation,etc, which is why I have cited the issue of the magazine where these comments were made. It was free magazine which relied on advertisments, it had a strong presence in UK musical equipment stores but stopped being produced 2002-ish. I am not on a crusade, but if Moby thinks by making these comments in the press he is due a pat on the back, then all I am doing is telling the public what HE said.
2006-11-08 05:45:38 · update #1
You should post a link to the article. Perhaps then people will believe. I would also refer the article to the police as they may have no indication that he supports paedophilia.
If it is true I'd urge everyone to bin his recods and not buy any new ones he puts out.
2006-11-08 05:22:07 · answer #1 · answered by Phlodgeybodge 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No I wouldn't but Pete Townhend was doing research for a book! Well, that is the story he gives. I don't hate but I do dislike Micheal Jackson...he was abused as a child. I'm not saying that it is OK that he has done or "NOT" done what he has said to have done. What I am getting at is Micheal could have not done what he did and I think at least on the 2nd time was because the people wanted money. In Pete Townhend's case is well if it was for a book! He had to research what he was going to read about and not just make a statement because he disliked or whatever about it. Here is what I'm saying is it's a bad thing that it is in the world but you can just point the finger and say these things. Who knows maybe Moby was making the same point. More then likely maybe I'm being stupid.
2006-11-08 05:30:11 · answer #2 · answered by katevans_98 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
First, I think media manipulates information and I read that in the celebrity world, misquotations are the usual thing, I guess, that the juiciest the story, the most papers sell, the most controversial the interview, the most famous is going to make the journalist in question.
I don't believe everything I read.
Plus, if Moby was a paedophile but I like his music, that doesn't mean I am not going to listen to something I like because the guy is an asshole.
I think Public shame would be enough. Bad publicity, and specially as bad as that, can not be forgotten with money.
2006-11-08 05:38:16 · answer #3 · answered by Sheldon 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. I wouldn't support anyone who is a pedophile as no one should. I didn't see the Moby interview unfortunately but I believe what you say. He might have skeletons in his closet too.
2006-11-08 05:24:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
yep the media is making me numb to lots of things so i dont care its about the music im shure there is things people dont find nice about you but im shure your still a good person so i dont care how much ministers smoke meth i just want the message they cant help there lusts of the flesh im not for or against it and to all artists who made music and there still alive why are you not making music im sick of hearing the same stuff over and over we need some new stuff
2006-11-08 05:21:29 · answer #5 · answered by peter w 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would not support, buy from, or buy products made by a paedophile nor would I ever give him or her the time of day I completely detest and abhor these people
2006-11-08 05:22:52 · answer #6 · answered by barn owl 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Uh . . . no. I don't support pedophiles at all, and have never purchased any music from any of the artists that you've listed. Don't forget about R. Kelly and his legal woe's, also.
2006-11-08 05:23:40 · answer #7 · answered by quatrapiller 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I dont buy them now and i wouldnt buy them then either.
moby is one of the many music artists who are using their musical influence to influence politics. if they want to do politics they should be politicians not both.
2006-11-08 05:22:33 · answer #8 · answered by bhamonkey 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no way,children should be protected from monsters like glitter& anyone who condones it is sick themselves, artistic perspective? no such thing in this context
2006-11-08 05:26:49 · answer #9 · answered by NightOwl 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i was never too fussed about him to begin with but after hearing something like that it's hard to look at them in the same way
2006-11-08 05:31:51 · answer #10 · answered by charli 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋