u/Lollibees

A revised post from original removed yesterday by moderators.

I have been thinking about the ethics of Non-Disclosure Agreements, which are called NDAs. When an estate uses massive wealth to buy someone's silence, it does not just protect a legacy. It actively harms other victims who are trying to tell the truth.

If we look at history, there is a huge difference in how things played out.

Jordan Chandler received a settlement, but he never denied what happened. He never hid where he stood, and his mother June Chandler took the stand to testify for the prosecution in the 2005 trial. Jason Francia also received a settlement and took the stand as a key witness to tell his story.

The Cascio siblings finally recognized the reality of the abuse after watching Leaving Neverland in 2019. But right after that happened, the MJ Estate stepped in and reached a secret five year settlement in 2020 to buy their silence.

An NDA is not going to explicitly say it is a payoff for sexual abuse on paper, because that would be a confession. Instead, estates use clean looking legal paperwork to hide things that are completely illegal.

This is where the actions of the MJ Estate become very toxic. Because they successfully locked down that five year silence, fans used the Cascios as the ultimate proof that nothing bad ever happened. The Estate basically manufactured a false shield of innocence.

There are also other individuals who were friends of Michael's as children who still actively deny the abuse happened. It would be very worrying if people are being paid to stay quiet while posting a false narrative. I am unaware of any direct denial from the Cascios since Leaving Neverland came out, which is a good thing. It is very uncomfortable to see anyone continue to defend a legacy and deny abuse if they are actively receiving money while knowing full well what happened.

When Wade Robson and James Safechuck came forward, they faced massive abuse from the public. Fans aggressively used that enforced silence to make Wade and James look like liars.

The paid silence from the Estate did real damage. It isolated active survivors and made it twice as hard for them to be believed. It kept the public in the dark for years just to protect a corporate brand.

That is why buying silence is so ethically wrong. The MJ Estate used corporate legal tricks to turn a serious public safety issue into a private business deal.

If more people come forward in the future who have been paid by the estate, the estate should definitely be held accountable for actively silencing victims.

What do you think? Does the fact that the Estate used legal loopholes to cover up illegal acts make these silence agreements completely wrong? Do you think that if more come forward and it is apparent that the Estate silenced them by awarding them financially, the Estate should be punished for that alone in some way?

​

The history of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and secret settlements surrounding the Michael Jackson Estate raises deeply troubling moral questions. Recent revelations indicate that following the release of Leaving Neverland, the Cascio siblings each received $690,000 per year for five years through a confidential 2020 agreement. This naturally makes one wonder if Macaulay Culkin entered into a similar, perhaps even more lucrative, arrangement. Given his early retirement, it is highly plausible that a substantial, hidden income stream from the Estate has funded his lifestyle.

While Macauley earned an estimated $23.5 million from his historic film career, those blockbusters were filmed decades ago. Public information suggests he does not receive ongoing film royalties for Home Alone, though he likely retains a percentage of merchandising revenue. His partner, Brenda Song is also a former child star with a reported net worth of $8 million. However, their recent purchase of a $10.3 million mansion seems disproportionately high for their visible income. Even allowing for the profit they made on their previous property sale, maintaining such a lavish lifestyle usually requires a massive, continuous revenue stream.

If Macaulay has indeed signed a secret agreement with the Estate, it is profoundly disappointing. Michael Jackson’s current fans must recognise the disturbing reality this implies: within this system, the most profitable move is to stay silent. Accepting secret compensation instead of validating other victims—all while maintaining a public denial of abuse—is an incredibly bad look.

Historically, we have seen varied approaches to these settlements. Jordan Chandler received compensation, but that payout became public knowledge, and his family never denied the abuse, in fact his mother testified for the prosecution in the 2005 trial. Similarly, Jason Francia received a reported $2.4 million settlement but still took the stand as a key prosecution witness, offering no denial of his experiences. The same standard should apply to figures like Brett Barnes. Refusing to come forward and accepting money to protect a compromised legacy is morally indefensible, especially given the intense public abuse that vocal accusers endure. It suggests these individuals are fully aware of the abuse they suffered, rather than failing to recognise it.

Furthermore, it is disappointing that the Cascio siblings did not come forward sooner. A timely settlement for their silence actively harmed the credibility of Wade Robson and James Safechuck after Leaving Neverland. While it is fair to acknowledge the immense emotional toll they faced upon discovering that the abuse extended to each sibling, using hush money to bury child sexual abuse should simply not be allowed. If it is ever proven that Macaulay Culkin signed a non-disclosure agreement with the Estate while continuing to publicly deny the abuse, his actions deserve to be judged harshly in my opinion.