O.J.'s Forthcoming Book: "If I Did It"

According to the NYTimes and Chicago Sun , O.J. Simpson, acquitted for the 1994 murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, has written a book to be published by ReganBooks in which he will tell "how he would have committed the murders if he were the one responsible." He will also appear on Fox TV on November 27 and 29 in two one-hour shows produced by Judith Regan, entitled (as the book) "O.J. Simpson: If I Did It, Here's How It Happened".

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Add it to the collection?

Would you add it to your public library collection anyway?Some people would probably check it out....

for pity's sake

(or stronger...)is it Sweeps Week again already?

Re:Add it to the collection?

No, I say ban it.

Re:Add it to the collection?

I would quit first. That scumbag was found to have killed them by a jury that weighed a preponderance of the evidence. That is good enough for me.

Being a Buffalonian I liked OJ but slashing people to death makes him persona non grata in my book.

I'm buying it

Someone's going to want to read it.And all of us have books in our collections written by criminals: Chuck Colson, Dostoevsky, Victor Hugo, Reuben Carter, Martha Stewart, Oliver North, etc.Yeah, he did it. So what? I'm a librarian, not a district-attorney-at-large.

Greg's "banning criteria"

"Why should libraries facilitate what is either a liar and con or worse a murderer?"Why is that our business? You must have books in your library by liars, cons, murderers and worse.

Re:Greg's "banning criteria"

Without question, proving it is not always as easy as simply knowing it. Why is it our business? Because we run on tax payer dollars and we should make some effort not to flush their money down the toilet.

Re:Greg's "banning criteria"

By using your biased, inaccurate opinions on the motives of authors?Face it, Greg. You don't dislike bias. You just don't dislike biases that aren't your own.

Re:Greg's "banning criteria"

That should have read:"Face it, Greg. You don't dislike biases. You just don't like ones that aren't yours."

Re:Greg's "banning criteria"

Its inaccurate to say its illegal for a criminal to profit from a crime?

I've never said I dislike bias. In fact I've said I expect it, I just like to keep it actually related to libraries.

Re:Greg's "banning criteria"

Ah, yes, the old "tax payer's dollars" propaganda.

Knee-jerk reactionary, shit-head censors are not the only ones who pay taxes. Free thinkers pay taxes too, and I have no doubt they'll thank the censor-morons very much to keep their grubby paws off of people's minds.

Okay, people, here's the deal . . .

O.J. Simpson was found not guilty in his criminal trial. From a legal stand point, nothing else matters. Even if he did in fact commit the crime and now comes forward admitting it, all that matters is that he is not guilty de jure. As for assuming he is guilty simply because a segment of the population believes he is, that is simply asinine. A segment of the population once believed the earth was the center of the universe and burned people to death for not also believing it, and even an abject idiot should know how that turned out. The reality in such cases is not that people believe he did it because others do, but that such people are not accepting responsibility for themselves. Ultimately, you choose what to believe or not for yourself; rationalizing that it is due to the influence of others is a cop out

As for Son of Sam laws which do make it illegal for criminals to profit from their crimes by publishing books about them, some of those have been stricken down in the last year or two. The original Son of Sam law itself, comes to mind.

If you think that the book should not belong in your library because it is not accurate, then by all means do not select it for the collection. But trying to start a blanket movement founded on rejecting it a priori on your say so is censorship, and don't try to pretend that you are doing it out of some sensitivity for rights and freedoms.

Mein Kampf

So if this is a standard, then I'm sure that we will not be buying Hitler's Mein Kampf anymore, and should we start removing it from the shelves? 'Cause even if you believe that OJ is guilty, he doesn't come close to Hitler.

Or, when Albert Speer's book, Inside the Third Reich, came out, would you have suggested that libraries not buy it?

Re:Mein Kampf

1. Hitler is dead.

2. Hitler is dead.

3. I haven't read Mein Kampf, maybe someone could elaborate, does he spend any time discussing the death camps? Does he admit they exist? Does he detail the horrors out of some sense of pride and satisfaction? If so, by all means, burn it.

4. Hitler is dead.

Re:Mein Kampf

. . . does he spend any time discussing the death camps?

No, essentially he just lays out how to go about building the kind of society where concentration camps and death camps are the norm.

Does he detail the horrors out of some sense of pride and satisfaction?

No, he details his plans for the New German Century out of a sense of arrogant and stupid imperialism.

If so, by all means, burn it.

And then we can start burning Jews again; and then Wiccans; and fags; and unAmericans; and Obs/Gyn physicians who talk about birth control; and Democrats; . . .

I'm sure you don't see the theme that is developing there, Mr. McClay, but if you are going to burn books the way the Nazis did, you have no place whining and sniveling when you are compared with the Nazis. You know, if you weren't so invincibly ignorant, you too could learn something from the lessons of history.

The point about bringing up Adolf Hitler is not whether he is dead, but the affect he had on the world while he was alive, and how Amerika under the Republicans is following his example.

Or are you going to try to tell us that because he is dead nothing said about the Holocaust could possibly be true since he isn't here to present a "fair and balanced" view?

Adolf Hitler happened -- the O.J. Simpson Affair happened. Effecting revisionism by banning or burning their books will not change the factuality of history. Get over yourself.

Re:Mein Kampf

Yes, I'm aware that Hitler is dead. There is nothing in your criteria, or logic, that allows for an exemption if the author is dead. Nor did you address the issue of Albert Speer. He was very much alive when his books were published and sold.

Re:Greg's "banning criteria"

Yes because if the library does not have it no one can think it.

Re:Greg's "banning criteria"

. . . if the library does not have it no one can think it.

ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING MY ASS OFF!

So where does 15,000 years of human violence come from?

Let me clue you into one of the lessons of history here. In 1012 the Pope in Rome wrote an encyclical calling for the liberation of the "Holy Land" from the heathen Moors. In 1013 an army swept across Europe heading for the "Holy Land" and took the liberty of murdering every Jew they came across along the way. The Holocaust was simply the most recent expression of this thousand year wave of genocide.

I don't think the Vandals of the -- what? Fifth Century? -- did a lot of reading up on wanton destruction before setting out to create a concept that is alive and well and in frequent use to this day. In what library did Cato the Elder get the idea that "Carthage must be destroyed"? Or Rome its imperialism? In what library did some Chinese emperor read about rounding up all the intellectuals and enslaving them to work on the Great Wall, and entombing those within it that refused to do so?

First off: People come up with plenty of ideas on their own.

Secondly: An idea is not responsible for the people that believe in it. Quite the contrary, in fact, it is people who are responsible for what they do and what they believe. I watch a lot of police procedurals; the CSI series, for starters, and yet, oddball that I am, I have never felt the compunction to go out and try to recreate some of those crimes for my own amusement.

Re:Greg's "banning criteria"

Hmmm, maybe the Pope was right.

Um, this and my previous comments are sarcasm. There should probably be some sort of HTML tag for that, but there is not. I'll mention it at the next working group.

Re:Greg's "banning criteria"

Ah; beg pardon. The formula for the sarcasm tag would be ampersand, lt, and semicolon, followed by sarcasm (or /sarcasm), followed by ampersand, gt, and semicolon. That will give you this when interpreted by the browser: <sarcasm> -- </sarcasm>

You can't just use the angle brackets themselves because the browser will interpret what is between them as an HTML command and it will not show up on the monitor.

Syndicate content