I hope you’re happy. Now you’ve done it, you’re helping destroy the world. The sad thing is, you’re proud of it. You’ve complained, and complained, and complained, and the powers that be have heard you. They’re pulling the O.J. special. It’s not going to air. Good for you, destroying free speech, nicely done. That’s certainly something to give thanks for this Thursday. You’re going to go around the table with your family, everyone will say what they’re thankful for, and your answer is going to be, “Through making my upset at a television program known, a television program that no one was forcing me to watch or pay any attention to in any way whatsoever, I convinced the FOX Network not to air the O.J. special. Oh, yeah, and burning books, I’m thankful that I’ve helped burn books.”
Way to go, nice to know that the First Amendment to our Constitution means absolutely nothing to you. Heck, if you personally don’t like something, it shouldn’t exist, right? Well, you’ve won. The show won’t air and all the books will be destroyed. Go you, way to pulp our freedom.
If you don’t want to watch something, don’t watch it. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to watch a show you don’t want to, read a book you don’t want to, listen to a news report you don’t want to. How dare you stop others from having the freedom to listen or read or watch what they want? How is that possibly hurting you?
But at least I can take some solace in the fact that you read the book before demanding its recall, that you watched the whole special instead of just seeing a commercial for it. Right? You at least performed some sort of due diligence before foaming at the mouth.
Oh. Wait. You didn’t read the book? You didn’t watch the show? The very idea that it existed without your knowing the specific content was enough for you to decide that it was wrong? Wow, you’re far smarter, far more intelligent than I. I need to actually see things before I pass judgment.
And, to top it all off - and you can argue with me all you want on this - guess what, O.J. wasn’t convicted of murder. All your complaints surrounding this TV show and book are that you don’t want to listen to a murderer talk about how he “hypothetically” would have done it had he done it. Whether or not you think the trial was a disgrace, whether or not you think O.J. bought his freedom, whether or not you think the prosecutors blew it, that the police botched the investigation, that O.J. is guilty as sin, the fact remains that he was declared not guilty by a jury of his peers.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Diane Kristine
Are you kidding? Or just playing devil's advocate? I think you might be a little confused about what freedom of speech means. You seem to be implying only Simpson and Fox have that right, and yet their freedom of speech wasn't infringed on.
Fox chose to recall the book and not air the special â€" the government didn't come along and tell them they couldn't, the FCC didn't threaten fines. The outcry wasn't engineered by a special interest group to demand censorship. Fox pulled it of their own accord because overwhelmingly, their affiliates, their advertisers, and their audiences exercised their own freedom of speech and said they didn't want to watch this or support this. And Fox realized that the potential loss of revenue and damage to their already-damaged reputation wasn't worth the potential audience for the show and book.
Their right to air the show is intact and they've chosen not to exercise it â€" for economic motives more than moral ones, I'm sure.
And you don't have to read the book or see the special to know where you stand on a network and a man profiting from a hypothetical scenario about how he might have murdered the mother of his children. This isn't a story on CSI - there are real dead people, real children being offered up as entertainment.
2 - TV and Film Guy
The problem isn't the fact that Fox has decided to pull it. The problem lies in the public-at-large brow-beating Fox into doing so, and then celebrating it as some sort of victory.
And, I still say that even if you know that you're against someone like O.J. profiting through this sort of endeavor you should simply choose not watch, not lambaste Fox and O.J. and the publisher for doing it.
It is no victory to shout so loud so as to drown out his freedom of speech.
Beyond that, maybe he doesn’t say what you think he’s going to say. Maybe he has a point that you haven’t considered about it all.
3 - Diane Kristine
I can't get how you can call it a freedom of speech issue, then object to the fact that individual people - en masse, individually - chose to speak up and say they were disgusted. Are you saying that these people did not have a right to tell Fox they wouldn't be watching and didn't want it to air?
Whatever Simpson had to say isn't the point. No one has the "right" to be broadcast or published. You can't walk into your local TV station and say that freedom of speech gives you the right to airtime. He still has every right to say what he wants to say. Fox still has every right to air it. People had every right to speak out against it. And most who did so didn't take issue with what he might have to say - who cares, and it's not like he hasn't had his say in the past - it was the fact that he was being paid to say how he would have killed his ex-wife and her lover. And this was packaged as entertainment, not news.
What "principles" do you think are being destroyed in this scenario? You framed this as a freedom of speech issue, and yet your article is nothing more than a rant at people exercising their freedom of speech. If Fox had been forced to pull it, or if the FCC had stepped in with fines, I would have wanted to speak up in disgust at that. But of course this is seen as a victory by TV viewers - it's a victory for nothing less than the power of freedom of speech.
4 - TV and Film Guy
You yourself point out my very problem in the last sentence of your first paragraph: "Are you saying that these people did not have a right to tell Fox they wouldn't be watching and didn't want it to air?"
I have a huge problem with the last part of that. A huge problem. You won't be watching, that's fine, you telling Fox you don't want it to air, that's not fine. That's where you cross the line. There's a mere symantic difference between what you're saying and telling Fox not to air it, and that's something you shouldn't do. That's where you've gone wrong and stepped well outside what should be your sphere of influence.
You have the right to tell Fox not to air such programming in the future and you do that by not watching the show and it thereby getting a low rating.
You don't know for a fact what was in the show, you don't know for certain what the gist of the entire show was, it's wrong for you to pressure them into not airing it. You know how it was advertised, but that's not the same thing as knowing the content. And, your pressuring Fox to not air the show means that a vocal group that may very well be in the minority on the issue has affected a change that may not be for the good.
Your pushing to take something off the air that you've merely seen advertised and that you've read stories about, not something that you know the content of and that's wrong. It's just plain wrong.
5 - Diane Kristine
That's where you've gone wrong and stepped well outside what should be your sphere of influence.
But my question is - how are you defining "freedom of speech" in this article? Because objecting to the public having the right to say "don't air this" goes against the fundamentals of that principle as I understand it. Who are you or anyone else to define what opinions the public should be allowed to express, or what their "sphere of influence" should be? The only influence the public's voice had in this situation is the weight Fox chose to give it.
6 - TV and Film Guy
Can I point out, again, that you're strenuously objecting to something you haven't seen yet? That everyone that has stood up and told Fox not to air the show has done so even while they are completely ignorant of the actual content of the show?
7 - Diane Kristine
No, I'm strenuously objecting to the fact that you are throwing around the term "freedom of speech" in a way that makes no sense. This article comes across as a satire - a rant against freedom of speech that pretends to be for freedom of speech.
I never told Fox they shouldn't air the Simpson piece, or publish the book. If they think it's in their best interests, I think they should air it. But I will stand up for anyone's right to express their opinion that it shouldn't be aired, and for Fox's right to make whatever decision they want in the face of that opinion. I would also stand up for Fox if this truly became a freedom of speech issue and the government got involved in censoring them.
8 - TV and Film Guy
You do understand that by approving of people stating that Fox shouldn't air the program you're the one disguising being pro freedom of speech when you're anti. You are promoting people that wish to censor. And, you're promoting people that wish to censor something that they haven't seen.
9 - Diane Kristine
They asked Fox to reconsider through direct appeals to the network and expressing their opinions in public. They didn't ask for state censorship. The FCC or the government did not intervene. Fox made a choice.
I'm not being rhetorical, and you are avoiding the question - what do you mean by freedom of speech in this article? How does your definition correspond to the first amendment you refer to? Because unless they've amended the amendment, this is what it says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Tell me how congress has passed a law to challenge Fox or OJ's rights of free speech. Tell me how that first amendment doesn't PROTECT the people's right to go to the FCC or government with their complaints if they wanted to. But that's not even what happened here. It was people's opinions being expressed publicly and privately to Fox that you are objecting to.
Object to the reasons for their objections all you want, but you can't tie your argument to the first amendment and free speech without some rationale for how it fits.
10 - Diane Kristine
They asked Fox to reconsider through direct appeals to the network and expressing their opinions in public. They didn't ask for state censorship. The FCC or the government did not intervene. Fox made a choice.
I'm not being rhetorical, and you are avoiding the question - what do you mean by freedom of speech in this article? How does your definition correspond to the first amendment you refer to? Because unless they've amended the amendment, this is what it says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Tell me how congress has passed a law to challenge Fox or OJ's rights of free speech. Tell me how that first amendment doesn't PROTECT the people's right to go to the FCC or government with their complaints if they wanted to. But that's not even what happened here. It was people's opinions being expressed publicly and privately to Fox that you are objecting to.
Object to the reasons for their objections all you want, but you can't tie your argument to the first amendment and free speech without some rationale for how it fits.
11 - TV and Film Guy
Yes, very good, technically speaking you are correct, Congress has not passed such a law, The FCC (part of the government, not a separate entity) did not intervene. Fox was forced into a choice. In explaining myself I can only point you to Dictionary.com and their definitions of satire and irony.
My point still stands however. Individuals are absolutely trying to abridge Fox's freedom of speech. And whether it is our government or a group of people that stand up and try to do that it is wrong. And it does fly in the face of our nation's ideals.
It is indefensible.
12 - Anna
TV and Film Guy - you say that "individuals are absolutely trying to abridge FOX's freedom of speech." I'm afraid I simply don't see that.
FOX did what all networks do - they filmed a set of programming and proceeded to promote that programming - by airing snippets of it that they felt would give a potential audience enough information to draw them into watching. The potential audience reacted, vocally - as is their right - by saying that they would not watch the program. FOX, in all likelihood motivated by economics, decided not to air the program.
How is this different from a network filming a pilot, showing it to a test audience, and then deciding to pull it from the fall schedule when the test audience pans it?
As far as I can see, FOX was not "forced into a choice" as you say. FOX is a network - they are in the business of making choices about what to air and what not to air. Make no mistake about it - they choose not to air this program because they realized they misread their audience. They thought this would draw people in - and got swift feedback that it would not. They pulled it. End of story.
13 - Diane Kristine
"It is indefensible" - except it's the exact thing free speech and the first amendment is trying to defend. Now that's irony. I guess I was right, this piece is an unintentional satire.
You still don't explain what freedom of speech means to you and how Fox's were taken away, since what you call your "nation's ideals" are, according to your constitution, the exact opposite of what you are defending.
14 - TV and Film Guy
Anna - I believe Fox decided to cancel it not because it wouldn't generate big ratings, but because they decided that they didn't want the bad publicity others would heap upon them.
Diane - I promise you there is nothing about the piece that is unintentional. It has the exact tone and words that I intended for it to have. That, and I doubt that the intent of freedom is speech is to have others shout down someone else and try to deny them the opportunity to speak. Doing so is indefensible. It is foolish. It is wrong. And to try to argue that people should be allowed to attempt to deny others their freedom is a horrifically slippery slope that I greatly urge to contemplate the ramifications of.
15 - Diane Kristine
But whose freedom are you talking about? OJ's freedom to have airtime? Fox's freedom to make programming and business decisions in their best interests? Your freedom to watch a TV show that was pulled?
The slippery slope is in the illogic of this article and your comments, which are grounded in a fundamental misunderstanding of what freedom of speech is. There was no denying of freedom here. There were a lot of expressions of opinion, and you're entitled to yours, but at least get the facts right and try to frame an argument about your opinion in a way that makes some sense.
16 - TV and Film Guy
For Heaven's sake, how is it unintelliglbe to suggest that it is wrong, hugely wrong, for people to stand up and try to cut off someone else from speaking, to demand that someone else not speak when you don't even know what they are going to say?
17 - Lisa McKay
I think that Diane's point (and I agree with everything she's said here) is that no one has cut OJ off from speaking -- he can stand on any street corner he likes and say whatever he damn well pleases. He can self-publish his book if he chooses to; he can buy himself a website and put it up there for the world to see. No one has denied him anything.
Fox has made a business decision, pure and simple. They perceived that public reaction to this project would have cost them dearly, in both lost revenue and public opinion, and they made a decision based on that. Networks do that all the time, don't they?
The local chapter of the KKK might have every right to assemble in public, but I have every right to stand across the street and shout them down. That's not denying them their right to speak.
18 - TV and Film Guy
People have cut off O.J. from speaking, that's the point. The public hue-and-cry suggesting that Fox shouldn't air the special has cut off O.J. from speaking. And what's worse than that is the hue-and-cry comes from complete and total ignorance of what he actually says. People demanded that Fox pull the show and did so from a position where they hadn't seen it. They were simply offended by the very idea that someone who was never convicted of murder dared to do something they objected to.
19 - Diane Kristine
Exactly, Lisa. And what's unintelligible to me is comments like "How dare you take it upon yourself to deny his First Amendment, and FOX’s First Amendment rights?" How is your reference to the first amendment in this article intelligible? Or, if you really did mean it to be satiric or ironic, how exactly do you justify that unless you really mean the opposite of what you're saying - that obviously there was no infringement of freedom of speech?
If what you want to say is that people have no right to voice an opinion on the fact that OJ and Fox decided to profit from a "hypothetical" description of the murders he was accused of, unless they watch it, free speech is not the argument that makes your case.
20 - TV and Film Guy
I'm tired. You keep saying the same thing, I keep saying the same thing. Hyperbole seems dead in the world of the internet. I think we should agree to disagree.
21 - Leslie Bohn
TV Film, you're not listening.
OJ's freedom of speech has not been abridged. As has been pointed out several times now, OJ can say whatever he wants.
And Fox can run any programming they want. They didn't run this because they determined it would be bad for business.
There is no right to a Fox special in the Constitution. The first amendment refers to actions of the government (that's why the first few Bill of Rights Amendments are phrased "The Congress shall make no law...")
No one's Constitutional rights have been violated.
22 - Lisa McKay
They were simply offended by the very idea that someone who was never convicted of murder dared to do something they objected to.
Yes, and they had every right to do so. Fox has every right to both publish the book and air the special if they choose to -- they choose not to. That is their right. It was a business decision.
Show me O.J. bound and gagged in a cell somewhere and I'll start to worry about my right to free speech. While you make a case about people rushing to judge something they've neither seen nor heard, the idea that anyone's first amendment rights have been trampled on just doesn't fly.
Diane's already pointed out that the constitution protects us from the government suppressing speech it doesn't like -- it doesn't prevent Rupert Murdoch from refusing to publish something he doesn't think will be commercially viable, nor does it prevent a private venue owner from renting meeting space to a group whose goals he doesn't share. The larger point, which you seem to wish to ignore, is that News Corp isn't the only avenue of expression available to O.J.
23 - Anna
"I believe Fox decided to cancel it not because it wouldn't generate big ratings, but because they decided that they didn't want the bad publicity others would heap upon them. "
TV Film Guy - I've never noticed that FOX shies away from bad publicity. I believe that the network made a business decision - airing the show was going to cost them more than not airing it would. So they pulled it.
You keep saying that people shouldn't deny OJ the right to speak (which I don't think anyone has done) without first listening to what he has to say. You keep saying that he hasn't been convicted of murder. But that conveniently forgets that OJ was found liable for two violent deaths in a civil court. He owes the Goldman family upwards of $32 million dollars. Those also were findings of a jury of his peers. He has chosen to ignore those court finding and has never paid a single dime. I'm well within my rights to say that I'm not going to contribute, in any way to OJ's bank balance when he so clearly disdains his court-ordered financial responsibilities. And that includes refusing to patronize the network who saw fit to put more money in OJ's pocket.
Bottom line is this - people have a right to decide what they do, and do not, want to watch. They have the right to make that judgement without actually sitting through the entire program. OJ has had two trials and numerous interviews. He's had far more opportunity to speak out than Nicole Brown or Ron Goldman ever did. I'm entitled to determine that I have no interest in anything else he has to say, solely based on what he has said, and done, to date.
FOX advertised this show hoping to convince viewers to tune in. This had the effect of convincing viewers to tune out, as is their right. They didn't listen to people who told them they "shouldn't" air this program, and if they did, shame on them for not standing up for programming they believed in. Instead, they listened to people who said "we aren't going to watch this." And since they're in the business of airing things people will watch - well...
Freedom of speech is about exactly that. People, even OJ, have the right to speak. They have no right to demand that I listen. There is no affirmative right to an audience in the US Constitution. They have no right to demand that I directly or indirectly support them financially for that speech. A group of people saying that they won't watch isn't censorship... That's the viewing public voting with their remotes. There was every opportunity for people who wanted to see the interview to speak up and express their views to FOX - and perhaps they did. FOX did what all networks do - they listened to the larger and louder viewer group.
24 - TV and Film Guy
You can't possibly insist that it's a victory to shout down someone and stop them from speaking. You can't truly believe that the person that is louder in a fight ought to win.
And, you suggest people be given the opportunity to vote "with their remotes." That didn't happen here. That would have been fine.
25 - Lisa McKay
But TVFG, that was Fox's decision, no one else's. It's not our fault they didn't have the balls to stand behind their initial decision to air this stuff.
Again, show me where O.J. is being denied the right to speak. Show me where he can't publish this book himself (or find another publisher with the guts to do so), put it up on a website, or stand on a street corner and expound to the passersby. You can't do that, can you?