The Australian media baron Rupert Murdoch gave in to public pressure and his News Corporation (NYSE:NWS) book operation, Harper Collins, will not publish the OJ Simpson book If I Did It. A TV special related to the book was to run on Murdoch's network, Fox.
Australia is a former penal colony and perhaps Mr. Murdoch was worried that his US citizenship would be revoked and he would be returned to his island home.
The US has a long history of banning books. Catcher In The Rye was kept out of schools off and on for years. Ulysses by James Joyce, perhaps the greatest novel of the 20th century, was banned by the US Customs Office for fifteen years. The wonderful thing about banning books or blocking their publication is that, once the process begins, it has no clear end.
Mr. Simpson's book is a hypothetical account of what might have happened if he had killed his former wife and one of her friends. How could it be that Mr. Simpson has no First Amendment rights? OJ may be a jabbering horror of a human being, but he retains the right to write and publish as he see fit.
Murdoch may have wanted to appear the apple polisher to the public, but has done his industry a great disservice.
Douglas McIntyre is a partner at 24/7 Wall St.
New 'Twilight' movie dominates weekend box office 
Before the bell: Stock futures higher as gold sets another record, dollar slumps
Entrepreneur's Journal: Want to get a piece of the Buffett/Goldman honeypot?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
11-20-2006 @ 6:23PM
Dan Barnett said...
Mr. McIntyre misses the point entirely. Simpson's book was not banned. His 1st Amendment rights are not being infringed. No goverment is attempting to prohibit publication. The only thing that has occured is that Simpson's publisher has decided not to publish his work. This is simply a business decision that is made thousands of times each day. Simpson can write as he sees fit. There is no requirement that anyone actually publish his work. The fact that unpublished book is in the most appalling bad taste is just an added benefit for the reading public.
11-20-2006 @ 6:35PM
JC Consumer said...
No one is stopping O.J. from publishing his book. All he's got to do is use a self-publisher like Lulu.com and sell copies directly to the public. In other words, nobody's First Amendment rights are being trampled. Frankly, Murdoch made the right move by ditching the embarrassing, ill-conceived O.J. project.
11-20-2006 @ 6:52PM
John Sukllivan said...
The two previous posts are right on target. In fact, Murdoch's actions are proof that the First Amendment frequently works just fine. Nobody can force Fox to disseminate this garbage, nor can they prevent Fox from doing so. What we have in this country is called freedom, and I can even write "Thank God" to approve of that without someone else complaining "You can't write that."
11-21-2006 @ 12:22AM
jbardt said...
Simpson's book banned ? That is phunny !!
JBARDT
ishares s&p
stock trends
commodities wheat
forex rate
ftse 4 good
s&p 500 historical return
nymex natural gas futures
stock investor
SSX
nymex gasoline future
nymex comex
msci us broad market
Tokyo Grain Exchange, Japan
forex blog
dow jones industries
historical options
forex trading education
sue herrera cnbc
Bolsa de Valores de Quito - Ecuador
Amsterdam Stock Exchange, The Netherlands
options learn
forex charting
investing stock market
chicago commodity
ethanol company stock
ftse indices
dow jones interactive
11-21-2006 @ 8:12AM
Billy Kess said...
Well, Rupert also has the right not to air this crap on his network. The book is still going to be published and put on sale. The book isn't being banned. Murdoch simply doesn't want the interview on his network.
If I decide to write a book, would my first amendment rights be attacked because FOX wouldn't let me on to promote it?
Simpson is a double-murderer and a scumbag. His first amendment rights were not trounced upon at all. His interview was slashed - and the guy who slashed it has every right to do so.
Billy Kess
11-21-2006 @ 11:15AM
nen said...
That's just silly. OJ's 1st Amendment rights haven't been infringed at all. You might as well argue that the 1st Amendment requires Rupert Murdoch to publish/broadcast anything that anyone anywhere in America wants to say.