posted by ayatollah assahola @ 10:47 AM
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Does anyone else think it's bullshit that Fox won't publish the O.J. book?
donkeyscotch.
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Ya'll may not care, but I do and I feel like shari...
- This month couldn't get any better. Guess who's dead?
- I'm not saying I don't want Democrats to pick up a...
- We have a senate winner!The illustrious champion o...
- Ohio has a Democratic Governor and 1 Democratic Se...
- If you saw Jesus Camp and were generally creeped o...
- Reminder - entries in the legendary '06 jackblog c...
- estoy paseando
- I've been focused on the war lately and i've tried...
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
22 Comments:
You know I was thinking about this the other day and I do agree with you. The book is distasteful, it's a shameless moneymaking ploy and can be condemned on those grounds. But refusing to publish a book simply because it contains questionable or unseemly material is a dangerous precedent, and I don't like it at all.
I don't know what kind of advance was involved for the book, so maybe my logic is no good, but it seems to me like the decision for OJ to not make money off this should come from people refusing to buy it, not publishers refusing to publish it.
This is from a story on espn.com (my favorite news outlet):
"For the publishing industry, the cancellation of "If I Did It" was an astonishing end to a story like no other. Numerous books have been withdrawn over the years because of possible plagiarism -- most recently Kaavya Viswanathan's "How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life" -- but a book's removal simply for objectionable content is virtually unheard of." (http://sports.espn.go.
com/espn/news/story?id=2669635)
That's what I'm talking about. That shit should STAY unheard of, too.
Oh, come on. If it's so important to OJ Simpson to have his pseudo-confession heard, he can always self-publish a book. Or he can sign up for an account with Blogger--they're free--and just post it chapter by chapter.
Of course you're right, there are other options. But if I can pick between a situation where big powerful publishing houses either do censor or don't censor, I guess I'll go with no censoring.
Seems better to me.
But that's not censorship in any meaningful sense! Is OJ entitled to have a book about hypothetically murdering two people published by a big powerful publishing house?
Well, jesus, who IS entitled to have a book about anything published by anybody? That's not a meaningful criterion.
Well...right. Nobody is entitled to have their book published by anybody. Publishers make decisions based on content all the time--it's kind of their whole job. There's no reasonable way to define that as "censorship."
OJ hasn't been censored. No government agency forbid his free expression, and in fact there are still lots and lots of ways he can spread his hypothetical-murder story if he wants to. So what is the problem?
Rob,
The problem is with the way it happened. My main issue is with the American public and not with the publishing house. People got "outraged" over this for no legitimate reason. The only ones who could be truly upset are Nicole Brown's and Ron Goldman's families. Everyone else can really go fuck themselves. He was acquitted. So, he's got rights. And if he wants to write a totally sleazy book and get someone to publish it, more power to him. You don't agree with it, then don't fucking buy it. But don't use a fake sense of outrage to lobby a publishing house into not fucking selling it. In legal terms, it presents somewhat of a slippery slope. There will be far more controversial books looking to be published in the future, many with a good deal of merit. It will result in constructive censorship, if no one is willing to tell Berta in Buffalo she can sit on a dildo the next time she writes in with how offended she is.
I think there's also another issue, that the publishing house didn't simply pass on his book, which is of course their right. They made their decision based on the content, and their decision was to buy the manuscript and publish it. Then they violated their contract and withdrew the book not because the content was of low quality, or because of actual legal issues such as plagiarism, but because the content was deemed tasteless or inappropriate or morally corrupt.
I guess I don't know all the ins and outs of the publishing industry, but that seems wrong to me.
I read somewhere that he was paid 3.5 million for the rights. So he made money published or not.
I don't disagree that the playacted "outrage" of Bill O'Reilly or whoever is ugly to see. And all that collective moral superiority has left a bit of a bad taste in my mouth, too.
But it's a mistake to conflate censorship with a business decision made as a result of some bad PR. Censorship is when a government prevents free speech, and in this case a.) no government agency intervened, and b.) OJ's free speech hasn't been meaningfully limited.
Slippery slope? I don't see it. I'll tell Berta to go fuck herself when her sanctimonious moral outrage isn't being directed at an actual moral outrage.
Rob,
Actually, censorship under the First Amendment is when the government gets involved. Any private organization can refuse to print something, and in effect, censor the individual. It just isn't limited to the feds. For example, Berta writes some drivel for the local Rupert Murdoch owned newspaper about how our president is a coke-sniffing whoremonger. For political and moral reasons, they remove that section from the letter and print the rest. They have just censored her, according to the American Heritage Dictionary and most sane individuals.
Your point is only relevant if O.J. tried to sue. He couldn't claim censorship. If he did, you would be right. But no one, at least I'm not, is arguing that he should sue. Dan and I simply think it's bullshit they won't publish it.
By the way, an actual moral outrage is the government's failure to act in Darfur. This is not.
collective moral superiority? i can't speak for the collective, but i'll go ahead and consider myself moral superior to o.j. simpson, if for no other reason than i don't murder people.
so dan is pissed because fox, a company known for its morally superior television programing, decided something was too trashy even for them?
and sean is pissed because the american people don't want to hear his bullshit and fox listened?
Ayatollah, point taken re: censorship, maybe I was slicing the definition a little thin for our purposes. But I stand behind part b.) of my argument above.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
We've also been assuming that OJ can just go sell his book somewhere else, but does anyone know if that's actually true? He probably sold distribution rights, and maybe even intellectual property rights, to the publisher and unless they're required to relinquish these rights because they violated their contract (with no legal grounds whatsoever) OJ might NOT be able to simply sell his book through another press.
I guess that's what frustrates me, Sean. It bothers me that the book wasn't simply passed on--which would be fine, because OJ would still be the sole rights-holder--but was instead purchased, printed and within weeks (or maybe even days?) of distribution when it was pulled back not for legal reasons but because people just don't like it.
It's hard to argue this because the "victim" here is OJ Simpson, the book is an abhorrent one, and the whole thing is a bit absurd. But writers shouldn't have to worry about selling their work to publishers who can then restrict it from public distribution with no reprecussions. I don't know what to call that if it's not censorship, but unless I'm totally wrong, I doubt that OJ is fully in control of his work at this point. It's not Government intervention, but leveraged economic power, and that seems like as capable a censoring force as any.
And yes, OJ got his $3.5 mil or whatever, so maybe it's the Publisher that's taking a bath in this particular situation, I just don't like the precedent.
I second what dan wrote and would add this.
I find it pretty disgusting that just because people find a book offensive or in bad taste, they believe they have a right to keep it from being published. Like I said yesterday, if you don't like it, then don't buy or read it. But it's just a fucking book.
I don't like the precedent either. If the litmus test now for publishing becomes in part how offensive people will find a particular work, then we are all fucked.
And if that's bullshit, fine.
ccs- Speak for yourself. There's nothing more I enjoy than spending a weekend slashing coked-up white bitches and their lovers.
that's why yr a lawyer.
Here's someone who agrees with Ayatollah and Dan, sort of. Anyway that dude also wants to hear from OJ.
i assumed that the litmus test for publishing already was, in part, how offensive people will find a particular work. and how well it will sell, and other obscure details such as how the author's name will look printed on the cover. o.j.'s situation seems to differ from any other unpublished author's in that he had a contract (and thousands of books already printed, no?). this kind of 'censorship' happens in the music industry all the time, right? because bands sign Themselves under contract, rather than a particular work. i was just reading about a band called "leftover crack" whose label refused to publish one of L.C.'s entire albums. L.C. has no choice in the matter - the album 'belongs' to the record label - and so does l.c. they're not even free to make music for a different label for another 2 years.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home