O.J. Simpson's Book + TV Special Cancelled

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by amacgenius, Nov 21, 2006.

  1. amacgenius macrumors 68000

    amacgenius

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    #1
    Source

    What do you all think of this, granted what he did/didn't do was heinous, it kind of makes you want to read part if not all of the book to see how the hell he pulled it off.

    Discuss.
     
  2. MacBoobsPro macrumors 603

    MacBoobsPro

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #2
    I think they have finally realised he did do it :rolleyes: and that now makes the book redundant.
     
  3. danidoll521 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    #3
    While double jeopardy is necessary, it's a shame we have such a provision in this case. I think is seems pretty clear that he did it and I'm sure many would like to see justice served. He should never have gotten away with it in the first place.
     
  4. Sdashiki macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
  5. DavidLeblond macrumors 68020

    DavidLeblond

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    #5
    I think it is sad that the only reason Fox pulled it was the threat of a boycott. Something like this should not be agreed to in the first place. Plus OJ still walks away with $3.5mil. Whether he did or didn't do it, profiting off of your wife's murder makes you a sick sick man.
     
  6. amacgenius thread starter macrumors 68000

    amacgenius

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    #6
    I see your point but I have to disagree, due to the fact that this (in my opinion) is it's own seperate discussion, seeing as the other thread is the announcement of the book, etc - this is the announcement of the cancellation of the book, etc.
     
  7. MacBoobsPro macrumors 603

    MacBoobsPro

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #7
    So have they actually caught the person that 'did it?'
     
  8. benthewraith macrumors 68040

    benthewraith

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    #8
    I think they realized no one was going to watch it and so therefore decided not to show it.

    I had planned on not watching it.
     
  9. Sdashiki macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #9
    A thought:

    who is to blame for this? WHO is the truly guilty person? Besides the obvious.

    who pays for this to happen?

    who has the money that eventually would end up in OJs pocket?

    Is it Rupert Murdoc and Fox?

    Nope.

    Its the advertisers who are the most morally bereft of the entire lot.

    Advertising PAYS for television. And every single advertiser that had bid to be run during this interview on Fox, is truly the scum in this pit. They knew where their money was going and their commercials, and vicariously their products were advocating this atrocious mans grasp for more fame and money.
     
  10. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #10
    It's done. No one is going to show his interview and the book probably won't be published. Despite normal curiousity, I wouldn't pay one cent to read it for fear that he might profit from it.
     
  11. MRU macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #11
    caught him, tried him and then let him go by all accounts ;)
     
  12. sushi Moderator emeritus

    sushi

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    キャンプスワ&#
  13. MongoTheGeek macrumors 68040

    MongoTheGeek

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Location:
    Its not so much where you are as when you are.
    #13
    Its a sad day really. Imagine being able to suppress something by exhibiting moral outrage. All of the haters have silenced free speech.

    Who all have been punished.
    1) Judith Regan who was looking for some personal closure and had the daring speak freely.
    2) OJ Simpson's kids who were going to get the money.
    3) People who like salacious details. (not that they don't deserve it but included for completeness)
    4) People who just want to hear the truth/want it to get out.
    5) People who value their liberty.

    Who is being rewarded.
    1) Rupert Murdoch and Fox get to look like they care by shutting down an inhouse rogue.
    2) OJ Simpson. He got to give his confession and get absolution without people seeing it.
    3) People who have an agenda in stifling free speech. Including several left and right wing extremist groups. (pick your favorite enemies and add in the usual suspects)
     
  14. Buschmaster macrumors 65816

    Buschmaster

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #14
    Thank God...

    Something to be thankful for this Thanksgiving. ;)
     
  15. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #15
    The problem isn't that people would not watch, I think a lot of people would of watched it but the problem is that most of the affiliates were not going to air it.
     
  16. killr_b macrumors 6502a

    killr_b

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Location:
    Suckerfornia
    #16
    I think Fox gave the project a green light just so they could pull the plug later.
    "Ooh, Fox is so full of family values and respect that they didn't air OJ's evil. Blah Blah Blah."
    Don't be fooled. In this world the one who benefits most is the one who caused the problems. Without creating an evil monster there can be no great hero.
     
  17. DavidLeblond macrumors 68020

    DavidLeblond

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    #17
    Gahhh if I hear one more person say OJs rights were violated or someone's free speech was violated in this matter I'm going to SCREAM.

    No one's free speech was violated! Fox is a business. If they decide they don't want to publish a book, guess what? They won't publish it! Nothing is going to stop OJ from going elsewhere or even publishing that crap on the web for free. NOTHING.

    Lets say I decide I want to write a story about my belly button fuzz and have it published by O'Reily. O'Reily turns around and says "we don't want to publish your belly button fuzz book!" Are my rights violated? Should O'Reily have to publish EVERYTHING that comes their way? NO.

    The only thing this is "stifling" is OJ's ability to make a crapload of money off of his wife's death that he may or may not have been the direct cause of. Please don't make a mockery of our first amendment.
     
  18. MacBoobsPro macrumors 603

    MacBoobsPro

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #18
    Who in their right mind would spend time thinking about how he would of killed someone and then publicise it? Someone who clearly thinks killing someone is not a big deal.

    Ive read loads of accounts of what went down and the guy is so obviously guilty it is actually scary that he is allowed to roam free.

    The book should be called. "Ive had a think about it and I wish I had done it like this"

    Are retrials allowed in the US?
     
  19. DavidLeblond macrumors 68020

    DavidLeblond

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    #19
    No. Its called Double Jeopardy. He can be sued into oblivion, but the only way he can be charged criminally is if he killed again.

    I wouldn't be surprised if that happened either.
     
  20. MacBoobsPro macrumors 603

    MacBoobsPro

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #20
    Yeh Rupert Murdoch is a real ******* hey OJ?

    Edit: Just realised what you said: "He can be charged criminally if he kills AGAIN" :D

    First time doesnt count then? Right wheres my boss?

    *sound of gun being cocked*
     
  21. MongoTheGeek macrumors 68040

    MongoTheGeek

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Location:
    Its not so much where you are as when you are.
    #21
    Okay. No free speech rights were violated. My point is that this is one step towards the committee for the preservation of virtue and prevention of vice.

    No. Expressly forbidden in the constitution along with passing laws to specifically punish a person, and punishing people for things that were outlawed after the fact and executing children of traitors.

    There were revolutionaries in the colonies who were tried for sedition until convicted.
     
  22. MongoTheGeek macrumors 68040

    MongoTheGeek

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Location:
    Its not so much where you are as when you are.
    #22
    He can be tried for other things though. c.f. Rodney King trial...

    He violated their civil rights and tried to keep them from voting...

    /yeah, that's the ticket...
    //no, I'm not bitter...
    ///well maybe a bit
     
  23. j26 macrumors 65832

    j26

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Location:
    Paddyland
    #23
    What he said. There's no violation of his right to free speech, merely a decision (on economic grounds) that it would not be aired on Fox. He's still free to say it, it just won't get the publicity (or money) he wants.


    Incidentally double jeopardy is vital in a liberal democratic state to prevent opression. Sometimes it's effects are unwelcome, but we all profit by its existence, so please don't start demandng new trials. Accept that this is the one that got away.
     
  24. DavidLeblond macrumors 68020

    DavidLeblond

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    #24

    Ah, but based on the previous trial he DIDN'T keep them from voting, someone else did. So it would probably get thrown out.

    Besides, this is LA we're talking about. He could probably be filmed while blowing up the state capital and get off.
     
  25. DavidLeblond macrumors 68020

    DavidLeblond

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    #25
    They should have been granted a mistrial the first time. Did they even request one? If not, then they're idiots. There is no way that trial was fair.
     

Share This Page