Comments on: The OJ Boycott Site

By: Mike’s Lookout » Blog Archive » OJ Simpson & Lawyers

Mike’s Lookout » Blog Archive » OJ Simpson & Lawyers — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 05:56:47 +0000

[...] for OJ against our completely broken legal system. He was legally acquitted. Even if we think he is guilty, we need to let him go – that issue was concluded long ago. If you think our [...]

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:32:59 +0000

I agree with that it doesnt seem fair to be acquitted in one court only to be charged in yet another court and told to pay millions of dollars. I think deep down most people would think our justice system has a long way to go.
I sympathize with the Goldman and Brown family as well. I have never had anyone in my family hurt by a criminal act. I did have a brother, however, who was falsely accused of rape and put in jail for six months pending trial. Fortunately, the one of the two “victims” in the case confessed they lied that my brother had raped one of them because they thought he was from a rich family and thought they could get some money out of the deal. So, he got out but had a lot of emotional and mental trauma as a result.
I thought OJ might be innocent at first. I know there was DNA evidence and blood evidence but the way the media reports it, there were also samples of blood evidence missing and then there is the little problem with Mark Furman having been accused of planting evidence in an earlier case in his career.
Having said all that, OJ pretty much cemented the fact that he is an arrogant a**hole by being involved in this tv and book deal “If I did it”. IF nothing else, how can he be that insensitive to his children’s feelings (unless of course they are insensitive a**holes as well and I am not saying they are).
I wished OJ could have been found guilty in a court of law. I wish the LA Police department and DA’s office could have done a much better job. And most of all, I wish Fred Goldman would be able to move on. He has pretty much used up a lot of hate in helping OJ stay in the news. Even bad PR is good PR.
None of that is going to change, however, just like the middle east will never be at peace. SO, we will continue to have interesting tv news media coverage for years to come.
I wish it all could stop.
Life is way too short.

Michael

By: Andy

Andy — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:44:57 +0000

Mark,

I share the unease as expressed by others here, but bottomline, I share your willingness to boycott. The OJ saga is pure sleaze and my condoning it via indirect support to sponsors etc only will encourage the next Xtreme low.

I’m sick of this race to the bottom of the sewer pit, especially when the target is primetime viewers which include my kids. Plus I hate the thot of someone getting away with murder and being allowed multiple opportunities to rub salt and gore into the wounds and profiting from it.

As for those who would point out using parental control devices and what not, shut the hell up! Especially if you don’t have young remote-control saavy kids. With 4 kids spread over 10 years, it ain’t easy trying to keep up with what’s appropriate or not beforehand then setting a block.

Heck, even when I program my Dish Network to record any instance of a show like LOST or 24, I end up with a bunch of weird stuff that I would hardly consider relevant. And you wanna tell me that that same programming in reverse will block stuff? Yeah, right. The metadata is only as good as the person lodaing it. If Johnny can hardly read/write…GIGO.

Anyhoo, the pressure worked and Project OJ Tell All has been relegated to the ashheap for now. WooHoo!

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:13:13 +0000

Boycott Direct TV- Owned by Rupert Murdoch. Maybe then he would think twice about paying murdering idiots like OJ. Dish Network is better anyway!!!

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 18:14:30 +0000

Well, I don’t care if anyone sees the show…people look up beheading videos on the Internet, and as sick as that is, it’s their right. What I care about is registering some sort of protest at what I see as a reprehensible product.

In any event, it’s clear to me that you and many other (most?) readers of this blog don’t share my sentiments on this issue. I respect that, and I don’t intend to beat anyone over the head insisting I’m right and they’re wrong. I just wanted to make it clear the difference between a boycott and a nanny state; for example, a boycotter would protest smoking in a bar or restaurant, and try to convince others not to frequent that place. A nanny-stater would pass legislation accomplishing his or her viewpoint by force of law.

By: docweasel

docweasel — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 17:58:17 +0000

But why is it so important to you that _others_ not see the show? You can easily not see it yourself. Just don’t tune in. But by boycotting, you are attempting to coerce the network not to air the show: your only goal here can be that _noone_ see it.

Look, for better or worse, the money’s been paid. I seriously doubt OJ has ‘points’ on this, TV just isn’t done like that. There is no way you can punish OJ, only the network, and the only thing you can possibly accomplish is to stop the airing, or any future airings of controversial shows. I put it to you that this is a bad thing, individuals getting together to stop airings of shows to deny the rights of others to see them. As a libertarian, I stand up for that principle, even when the subject is especially dispicable. Especially then, because principles are best tested when you are completely at odds with the subject they defend. I detest OJ, but I support the rights of anyone who wants to see the show.

The slippery slope argument holds here: someday your pet show may face the wrath of the secular humanists or the hard left. Its good to be consistant in these cases.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:54:54 +0000

I’m sympathetic to your argument, if this were only about allowing O.J. to have his say. But it’s not – it’s about letting a killer profit to the tune of a reputed $3.5 million.

In any event, it is not censorship, it is the marketplace at work. If Fox and ReganBooks decide they will make enough money off of this to outweigh the stain on their reputations, then by all means, show the damn thing.

I cannot stress this enough…boycotts are not censorship. They are consumer-driven and private in nature. Censorship is preventing someone from doing something by force (as in force of law, as in government). The boycotters cannot force Fox and ReganBooks to avoid this…they can only attempt to convince them that it will hurt their bottom line to do so.

By: docweasel

docweasel — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:08:22 +0000

My problem with boycotts and trying to keep things from airing is that now both sides (not that OJ has a side) are now doing it, and the upshot is stifling of freedom of expression and the right to decide yourself if you want to see it. Undeniably, there are millions who will/would watch this dreck. Why isn’t just not watching it yourself enough, if you disagree with it? Why must sponsors be punished and the networks pressured into not showing shows, from the Reagan bio to the 9/11 mockumentary to Stolen Honor to the OJ thing?

Frankly I’m against pressuring entities from airing/publishing/whatever just about anything. If you don’t like it, then don’t watch it. But really, no matter what your motives, it smacks of assuming you know what’s best for the rest of us to advocate censorship. Its the hallmark of the nanny-staters who think we need to be protected from ourselves. Well, we don’t. Americans are perfectly capable, and free, to decide themselves what to watch on TV.

Its been shown a small, loud, determined group can deny the majority the right to watch wtf-ever they want to watch. And that’s wrong. And it cuts both ways. Some day it may be your ox being gored. Freedom of speech and expression, and the right to view entertainment that you want to watch without hindrance, is best tested when its something many seem to think is offensive. The huge ratings the OJ thing would get means you are far from having universal agreement on this thing.

Let the babies have their bottle, and let the marketplace decide. I really hate boycotts and ‘chilling effect’ advocacy, on both sides and even on this.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 02:28:48 +0000

I share a little of Gwedd’s unease at the notion of suing someone in civil court for something he’s been acquitted of in criminal court. To me, that violates the spirit of double jeopardy; even if we don’t like the result, we have to live with it.

However, it’s ridiculous and insulting to call Fred Goldman a “scumbag” or “bloodsucker.” This wasn’t some idiot suing McDonald’s because he got fat or some ambulance chaser acting like he hit the lotto. I’m pretty sure he’d be plenty happy to never get a penny from OJ if Simpson who agree to spend the rest of his life behind bars, where he should be. I might not approve of the suit in theory, but in practice I don’t blame him for doing whatever the law allowed him to do to make up for one of the most ridiculous criminal verdicts in recent memory.

By: too many steves

too many steves — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 11:25:45 +0000

Gwedd: how do you type with your eyes?

Perhaps the better solution, to the Goldman’s problem, is to return the favor and murder OJ, then maybe they could get some of the $33m from his estate?