November 20, 2006


... works.


The Drill SGT said...

Losing advertisers works even better ;-)

Laura Reynolds said...

.. As so it should.

MadisonMan said...

Good. I wonder if Ms. Regan will lose her job.

I'm amazed that a book coming out on 30 November hasn't been printed yet!

Eli Blake said...

Uh, excuse me.

A jury of twelve of his peers heard all the evidence and determined that there was a reasonable doubt whether he did it at all.

Or don't concepts like, 'innocent until found guilty,' or 'acquitted' mean anything anymore?

You know what you read about this in the press and saw on TV. If that is now the standard of guilt then let's just bring back posses, lynch mobs and night vigilantes.

Ann Althouse said...

"Or don't concepts like, 'innocent until found guilty,' or 'acquitted' mean anything anymore?"

They don't mean enough to preclude a civil suit with a lower standard of proof, which Simpson lost.

MadisonMan said...

eli, please tell me you're not defending this man. OJ is not innocent, he is only not guilty. Big difference in my book. Civil court found him responsible for two deaths, two deaths he wanted to make more money off of. But, thankfully, cannot.

Note that I would be against anyone publishing a book detailing how they would have killed someone who was brutally murdered, even if they were demonstably uninvolved with the victim, and miles away at the time of death.

Unknown said...

First of all: "innocent until found guilty" is a false concept, the result of careless truncation of the proper contruction, which "presumed innocent until found guilty."

The difference is simple. O.J. Simpson is guilty of murder if, and only if, he committed the crime. If he did, he's guilty. If he didn't, he's innocent. And we are all free to have our opinions on which of those two it is.

The presumption of innocence comes into play in the context of the legal proceedings---that is, when it came time to determine whether he could be deprived of life or liberty because of the crime.

Furthermore, none of this changes the fact that the book publication and accompanying interview was a crass, shameless, and sick stunt of the first order. Even if we found evidence tomorrow that convinced us all he was 100% innocent of the crime, it would still be that way. It should have been cancelled, and it was. Good.

Gahrie said...

Good. I wonder if Ms. Regan will lose her job.

Probably not, since she works for Regan Books.

Eli Blake said...

Madison Man:

I'm defending him in that 1) at least at the criminal level of proof he was found not guilty, 2) yes, he did lose the civil suit, which precludes him from making any money off of this-- which he can comply with, and 3) yes, it is crass and disgusting-- but I still defend the right of Mr. Simpson to write something which is crass and disgusting and the right of a publisher to publish it. If you disagree with that, then it is your right to not purchase it. But I disagree completely with the mentality that because almost everyone in society might disagree with the contents of a book, therefore we have a right to hound the publisher until it is not published. Everyone in Italy, stirred up to anger by the medieval Church, was angry at Galileo too, so that he had to recant or face excommunication and continued persecution. Does that mean they were right?

Just because you have used another method than a legal ban to impose censorship doesn't make it any less censorship.

Revenant said...

A jury of twelve of his peers heard all the evidence and determined that there was a reasonable doubt whether he did it at all.

So what? That's merely the standard the courts are obligated to obey, not the one private citizens are. Furthermore, "a reasonable doubt of guilt" can still mean "almost certainly a murderer". Calling him a murderer is perfectly fine, especially considering that he killed two people.

Or don't concepts like, 'innocent until found guilty,' or 'acquitted' mean anything anymore?

Don't be a moron. Private citizens are only obligated to respect the results of a criminal trial to the extent of not engaging in vigilante activity. We're under no legal or moral obligation to stop using our brains until told to do so by a court of law.

Unknown said...

It would seem that Eli has moved the goalposts on us. First he tried to pounce on us for not accepting the O.J. jury's verdict as gospel. With that line of argument dispatched, he's now trying to suggest that we're wrong for engaging in a bit of market-driven censorship.

Interestingly, this new argument from a very similar fallacy that his old one did: that somehow our private or societally-driven acts are subject to the same restraints we place on the government.

But of course, that's silly. There are plenty of things we don't want our government to do, or to be involved in, that we are perfectly capable of doing ourselves. We ask the government to stay out of the religion business not to prevent us from practicing, but to ensure we can do so how we choose. Similarly, we ask the government to stay out of the censorship business, but in doing so we don't forfeit our right to do so.

But if Eli disagrees, then perhaps he would do us the favor of letting fellow lefties who make it a regular practice to shout down those they disagree with, tear up abortion protest signs, etc.

Besides, we haven't abridged OJ's freedom of speech. He is more than welcome to find an alternate venue this material if he wants to. He can start a blog, for goodness sake. Money's not as good though.

Joe Giles said...

I don't care what the jury says, I'm not walking his girlfriends home at night.

Wonder how the search for the real killers is going...

Bleepless said...

As usual, "guilt" is being used in two different ways, without the differences being conceived of, much less used.
1. Someone was/was not convicted in court (or charged). This is the legal usage.
2. He did it/did not do it. This is the logical usage, based upon the facts.
There once was some relationship between both varieties. This no longer is the case, thanks to the liberal judiciary's insistence upon letting everyone loose just as soon as they can find some pretext.

Tim said...


I'm exercising my free speech rights, so hang on:

O.J. Simpson is a multiple murderer, regardless of what a dozen sub-marginal half-wits from L.A. the rest of us were unlucky enough for them to had been selected for jury duty ruled;

O.J. Simpson is a multiple murderer that most half-wits recognize as a multiple murder whose ongoing freedom and ability to capitalize from those multiple murders is deeply offensive;

O.J. Simpson is a multiple murderer who, while having the right to write a book (laughable since the multiple murderer is practically illiterate), is not free from the rest of us expressing our opinion as to how grossly inappropriate it is for him to profit, either financially or otherwise, from "writing" such a book.

O.J. Simpson is a multiple murderer who makes sub-marginal half-wits look completely stupid for defending him against the charge he is "innocent until proven guilty."

knox said...

Just because you have used another method than a legal ban to impose censorship doesn't make it any less censorship.

Bullsh*t. The concern that someone might be offended by the word "bullshit" compelled me to insert an asterisk--is that censorship? We all censor ourselves and others every day through "shame" and other methods. This is a necessary part of a civil society.

goesh said...

- 3 cheers for humanity

Gritsforbreakfast said...

At this point after all the publicity O.J. could self-publish "If I did it" and make a fortune. Shame may work for the publisher, but I bet the public wouldn't be too ashamed to buy it, sadly, en masse. That's the real shame.