Why did Martin Luther King Jr. avoid being shown in the media on suspicion of prostitution?

I don't think anyone doubts the role played by Martin Luther King Jr. in the history of humanity's struggle for freedom and equality.

His famous lecture "I Have a Dream" was once selected for our high school textbook, and those sentences are still hot whenever you think about it:

"If the crisp autumn of freedom and equality does not come, the scorching heat of black indignation will not pass."

"I dream of a day when this country will stand up and truly realize the true meaning of its creed: that we believe that these truths are self-evident — that all men are created equal.

I dreamed that one day, on the Red Hill in Georgia, the sons of former slaves would be able to sit with the sons of former slave owners and share brotherhood.

……

I dream of a day in which my four children will live in a country where they are judged not by the color of their skin, but by their character. ”

On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. The whole world grieves. On the 12th day thereafter, the People's Daily published an article entitled "Statement of Support for the Struggle of Black Americans Against Violence."

However, reliable information shows that this great human rights fighter has a very bad record of private morality.

Because of leading black people to fight riots and fight for human rights, Martin Luther King Jr. has long been on the FBI's blacklist. At the behest of Iron Fist Director Hoover, the FBI long eavesdropped on him in an attempt to prove his involvement with the Communist Party and the Soviet Union, and unexpectedly gained many secrets in Martin Luther King Jr.'s private life.

This great human rights fighter was not a morally perfect and pure saint, on the contrary, he was quite tasteful. Martin Luther King Jr. was a prostitute, had a wide range of sexual interests, dabbled in all skin tones, and loved multiplayer sports.

Even, when I received the Nobel Peace Prize, I still did not forget to visit the local sex industry for one night in Stockholm.

Just before that famous speech that went down in history, the FBI informed almost all of the influential media of the black material at its disposal, trying to discredit Martin Luther King Jr. in his private life in order to destroy his career.

Surprisingly, the capitalist media, which has always been known for its low-grade fun, has surprisingly unanimously opted for rejection of hype this time.

The attitude of the media is that prostitution is a matter of private morality and has nothing to do with public utilities; the erosion of the private life of leaders does not negate the justice of this cause. Compared with the prostitution scandal, the FBI abuses its power to invade the private lives of citizens by eavesdropping, which is even more despicable.

How should we view this historical event?

Prostitution is certainly nothing to defend, which is absolutely wrong and illegal; but the media's refusal to hype up scandals deserves praise.

The corruption of private morality does not mean that public morality cannot be established.

No one will support a client, but when he builds the cause of human rights, he does not do so as a client, just as he does not act as a human rights leader when he does.

No one will support a client, but certainly no one will support a client who scolds or despises a client.

It is easy, safe and cost-effective to hype up scandals and ridicule immorality, but it is likely to be immoral, at least morally dubious.

People who are keen on picking up dung and flaunting how clean they are may not be convincing. Maybe it's just a pleasure to see other people unlucky.

People's moral expectations of public figures will inevitably be higher, which is beyond reproach. Because public figures have greater social influence, they should take on more responsibilities and sacrifice a little privacy in their personal lives.

But this "one point" can really only be "one point", can not be excessively demanding, there is no pure and immaculate person in this world, Martin Luther King Jr. is not, and no one else is.

There must always be a yardstick for evaluation, that is, to look at "social harm", martin Luther King Jr.'s immorality in private life, almost no direct social harm; if there is, it is probably no more than crossing the street and running a red light.

When we talk about history, we only talk about history, only seek to solve the boredom and refuse to innuendo.

In short, prostitution is undefensible; pickpocketing is not necessarily noble; and refusal to hype scandals is worthy of praise.