I'm confused, why are some people so offended that they have reported this post?
I think it's a sensible discussion and it's one that is now being talked about a lot in many circles because of metoo and the many things that have come to light.
A lot of people say they separate the art from the artist, some feel it depends on the circumstances i.e. type of accusation, found guilty or not, the way the person responded to allegation etc, others say absolutely no I can't support that now.
Woody Allen - pp mentioning child's mental health, did a judge not also say that he believed a child had been coached to report things that didn't necessarily happen? For me marrying adopted child is way beyond anything I can find acceptable, I don't like his movies either, so I'm already out
Weinstein - bizarrely for someone who watches a lot of movies, I haven't seen very many on the list. Given that he has admitted things happened, the massive pattern, the charges etc I would deliberately avoid a film he was involved in from now on, but he was taken out of the company. I don't think he can still profit, can he?
MJ - for many, culturally, musical genius and huge influence in those areas. Very complex personal story and unusual character yes. Importantly, was found not guilty. No other cases came forward. As ops have noted, misleading and questionable evidence reported all over the place. It's purely speculation really and I absolutely can't say for sure, other than to say he has died, he is not profiting in any way, he was found not guilty and if anyone else wants to appreciate his music, that's for them to decide.