| Guilty, Guilty, Guilty |
| Recently there has been a lot of fuss among booksellers on whether or not they should stock and/or sell O.J. Simpson's new book. All the discussion hinges on free speech. Should potential readers have the right to buy the book if they want to read it? Should a bookstore be able to not stock the book because they disagree with the sugject? Well, first, bookstores censor all sorts of books so I don't know why they are talking about free speech. Bookstores don't stand for free speech. Not at all. They stand for what they see as good books. If they really stood for free speech, they'd be traumatized every day in selecting which of 6 million titles to fit into their stores. I don't know of any bookseller who is so traumatized. Second, and perhaps more important, a jury trial determined that O.J. Simpson was not guilty. And our country used to pride itself on a person being presumed innocent until proven guilty. Yet, in this discussion no one has questioned the underlying assumption: That O.J. Simpson is guilty despite a jury finding him innocent. Now, of course, it's hard to think that Simpson was truly not guilty. Most of us think that the jury erred (and that the prosecutors were incredibly inept). But will anyone else stand up for our jury system? Or will we all drape ourselves with flags and the sanctity of free speech and shout Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! If so, we should do the same for every other man or woman found innocent by a jury -- especially if we disagree with the verdict. I do think that Simpson was guilty. I don't want to believe that, but if I had been on the jury, I would probably have voted guilty. I say probably because I didn't watch the trial closely and I don't know even half the evidence that was presented on either side. I cried when Simpson was driving around in a white Bronco. I cried for the lost opportunity of a good life, for the sad fact that many marriages end horribly, for the brutality of many men against women, for the fact that Simpson had been one of my heroes. All of that. I wanted him to be innocent. I came to believe that he was not. So sad. His new book, from what little I've read about it, is junk. As a publisher, I would never have published it. I would have demanded a true telling of his story. I don't think we got that with this book. So, it should be obvious to many of you that my thoughts on this subject are jumbled. My emotions certainly mixed. But, still, will anyone stand up and say, "Hey, a jury found this man innocent! Are we to become the new judge and jury, and ignore the due process of the legal system?" Oh well. |
posted by John Kremer @
12:47 PM
1 comments |
John Kremer's Ten Million Eyeballs Internet Marketing Event
1 Comments:
John,
You are right on target when you say this whole issue has nothing to do with anyone's right to free speech. The First Amendment guarantees only that the government cannot prevent you from saying something -- it does guarantee you a platform (in print or otherwise) to say it nor does it require that anyone listen to you (or publish, sell or read your book).
Just one important point overlooked in your entry today -- although OJ was found not guilty (not innocent but legally not guilty see http://www.lawyers.com/hgduvall/innocent.jsp for a good explanation of the difference) in a criminal trial, he was found liable for the death of Goldman and guilty of battery against his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson in a civil trial back in 1997.
True, OJ cannot be tried again for the same criminal offense. Nonetheless, he is legally liable to the Goldman family for damages because of that death.
I would agree that government officials have no business declaring him guilty or suggesting additional penalties, since they are obligated officially to accept the criminal case verdict. Individual citizens, on the other hand, have every right to disagree with that verdict and voice their own opinions. If we decided to act upon our beliefs when they run counter to the official verdict, we could be guilty of any number of criminal offenses.
I have the right to say the jury was wrong and OJ is guilty. I might be wrong, but it is my right to say it.
Post a Comment
<< Home