tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10284418.post116405567373086275..comments2007-03-18T15:56:03.717-07:00John Kremerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16486115512048790419noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10284418.post-1164115145633279952006-11-21T05:19:00.000-08:002006-11-21T05:19:00.000-08:00John,<BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Walthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15975508188276010586noreply@blogger.com