Why is no one outraged at the blatant profiteering of Ron Goldman's father? He calls ReganBooks and HarperCollins attempt to publish the book "profit by murder" and yet, now that he has secured the rights to the book, he is going to publish himself for his own gain!

"A portion of the proceeds to charity", why do I suspect this is less than 10%?

You, Mr. Goldman, are a hypocritical scumbag, and anyone who protested the originaly publication of this book and has now fallen silent are just as worthless.

"First amendment aside" is a frightening proposition, even theoretically. We either have free speech in this country or we don't. You can't have it both ways. True, anyone who publishes, sells or buys this book ought to take a good long look in the mirror (and maybe visit a psychiatrist), but NO ONE has the right to say what can be published and what can't. Protest it, sure -- but censor it? Who gets to decide? And which books will be next? Let's not even go there.

I agree that Ron Goldman's father is a hypocrite. He should have had the grace to keep his mouth shut. He has made me agree with OJ when he called him names. Perhaps he should change his name to Golddigger.

I want to read the book because I would like to know what truly happened.

How pathetic that people pretend to be offended because of two murdered people as if you're not aware of all the murders that happen in the US everyday simply because nobody puts a face to the victims.

Or what about the deaths we cause in Iraq everyday and how horribly those people die not to mention unjustly. What about the Palesinian holocaust that we finance?

I can stomach reading OJ's version of events and I hope he told the truth since he has nothing whatsoever to lose. I thought this was what we wanted, to know what happened.

Larry, while I appreciate your fondness for all printed words everywhere: A) There already ARE people who decide what gets published and what doesn't. They're called book editors, and they're no better than you or me at deciding. B) It isn't just me (or any other one person) who wants the book canned -- it's a community that stretches across the country. You know, the kind that makes (or pushes others to make) decisions all the time via the democratic process, the market system and the mass media. And C) "First amendment aside" isn't theoretical -- there's all kinds of speech that isn't protected by the Constitution. If anything deserves the label "obsene," it's the (ghost-written) confessions of a man who got away with the brutal murder of two human beings.

Barbara, I'll save you some money (as you can see by my name), he kills them in a "blackout rage". The chapter has a huge disclaimer (for legal purposes). Now spend the money on something else.

Is it twisted? Yes. Is it sick? Of course. When it comes down to it, however, all the controversy is simply HELPING the profit from murder. If there were no outcry, if people simply boycotted the book quietly many fewer people would see/buy/read this book. No one cares about O.J. Simpson anymore, hence the reason he wrote this book. If everyone ignored him, and it it would hurt him much more than people trying to keep it off shelves. Talking about it all the time just inspires curiosity; no fruit is more popular than the forbidden.

I'm well aware of the community that doesn't want the book published, Mark. I'm part of it. And I agree that the subject and the injustice of it all is obscene.

(I'm also quite aware of the role that editors play every day in the publishing world, but thanks for the reminder.)

But if someone WANTS to publish the OJ book -- industry pressure notwithstanding -- it's protected. The federal government can't prevent it, nor can anyone else.

As for "all kinds of speech that isn't protected by the Constitution," you're going to have to name some examples aside from yelling "fire" in a movie theatre or inciting people to riot. Can Larry Flynt publish "Hustler"? Can you pick up a copy of "Howl" at a bookstore? Or James Joyce's "Ulysses"? We're talking about publishing here, and it's all been tested, Mark.

As much as I personally don't want to see OJ's book published, or have ANYONE benefit from it in any way whatsover, I don't think your argument would stand up in court.

One more thing about editors and their choices, since you brought it up: My primary argument was about the U.S. Constitution, not the publishing industry. An editor is very different from, say, a minister of culture who gets to decide what people can and can't read.

Take away the First Amendment and that's what you're likely to get.

Oh yeah, and "First Amendment aside" IS theoretical because the fact is, it's been in place for over 200 years and a lot of people have died to preserve it -- even if it means upholding someone's right to publish a pathetic, disgusting, obscene book. I refer back to my original post -- protest it, pressure people to keep it out of stores, do whatever you like. I'm THERE. But constitutionally, you can't do much unless you plan to drag OJ into the U.S. Supreme Court. (Like we need that!) Now that I said my piece, I'll just agree with Ashley and stop talking about it.

You're right. Seriously. But isn't yelling f "I did it" after the federal government ruled you didn't in a sense the same as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater? A theater of angry people, just itchin to off someone? You know, in spirit if not.. I guess I'm just saying I wish somebody could do something. apologies all round.

To already read it, so you read it but you don't want others to read it?

If publishing the book doesn't bother Ron Goldman's family then why should it bother the rest of us.

What is the difference between publishing a book by OJ and somebody else doing a story about OJ for a magazine or a tv show? What is the difference between a book by OJ and a documentary by someone else about the murders? What is the difference between OJ writing a book about his crimes or George Bush writing a book about his crimes. Would you object to a book by George Bush or any of the neo cons? How much blood is on their hands.