Saying that most of it is perfectly fine art, whether you agree or not, avoids that you aren't talking about all the material.
All of the material mentioned in the documents was commercially available at some point. The material that isn't currently commercially available is simply out of print
As I'm sure you're aware, possessing child pornography is illegal. None of the material mentioned in the documents was deemed as such by the authorities. They've had years to investigate it.
Had any of the materials been determined to be obscene, pornographic, or pedophilic they would have been banned, likely never published at all, or brought forward at Mr. Jackson's trials as his legal adult material was.
Also, none of the materials mentioned in the documents was self-produced save for photographs described in the documents as shirtless barely clothed black teens who are in certain shots posing with Mr. Jackson. That's a pretty salacious way to describe an album cover shoot, wouldn't you agree? I believe the album is still available. I hear it's pretty good.
Explaining something does not debunk it.
Yes it does in this case. The assertion that Mr. Jackson possessed child pornography has been debunked according to the statutes of the United States government.
Cosby explained how he didn't rape all those women, while he explained how he raped all those women.
As I said, I'm not aware of the particulars of the Cosby situation and furthermore that last sentence makes no sense to me. Bill Cosby is not Michael Jackson.
Being in possession of "art" involving images of children nude or in the case of the stuff with kids heads placed on nude adults, while being the guy who built mini-Disneyland on his property and had sleep overs with kids is perfectly normal. Of course it is.
The material you're describing has been praised by art aficionados as a masterpiece of surrealism, including reviews on Amazon praising such works as (paraphrasing), "This book was recommended to me by the author's mother who was a high school art teacher for many years".
How many nude paintings or photographs feature nude women as their subjects? Are all the artists who produce this work merely horndogs? How about the many art lovers of the world? Are they secretly getting their jollies to the depiction of naked flesh?
Are we to assume that the scores of people who rave about "Apocalypse Now" are warmongers and advocates of animal abuse because it is extremely violent and contains a scene of an animal being slaughtered?
But nah, I am sure it is all a coincidence.
You're arguing from emotion instead of logic. Where was your outrage when Oprah had her featured pajama-clad sleepover party with a group of underage girls for her show? I didn't see any from anyone.
I suppose it's her lack of obvious cosmetic surgery that made it ok for her to sit in a bed with a group of underage girls in pajamas.