So, let’s see a show of hands from those of you who didn’t care to see O.J. Simpson hypothetically run through how he would have killed his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman. I’m assuming that most of you are either raising your hands or nodding in agreement.
Now, how many of you feel News Corp. violated your right to free speech?
According to reports from IMDb, poet/playwright Jayne Lyn Stahl, in her column on Arianna Huffington’s blog, wrote: “What may (be) lost in the shuffle here is that one person, and one corporation, News Corp., has the power to pull the plug on a T.V. special, as well as the planned ... book. ... Few, if any, will lament the loss of the OJ book and interview, but make no mistake, unprecedented media, and newspaper consolidation poses the gravest threat to freedom of expression, and the First Amendment.”
I read this a couple of times and could not believe how far off of the mark on person could be.
The First Amendment is:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
My question is, Ms. Stahl, where did the government come into play in this O.J. scenario?
News Corp. is not “Congress,” nor is it any governing body. That gives it too much credit.
If O.J. Simpson wants to revisit the past, hypothetically confess to a crime, reopen the gaping psychological wounds of the Brown and Goldman families and make himself appear as horrible monster in the eyes of the children he fathered with Nicole Brown Simpson, he has every right to.
He can shout it from the rooftops, yell it at the subway and bus stations, post fliers everywhere and so on. He has the right to do it.
But no person or company is under any obligation to pay him. The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee a written work will be published.
That, Jayne Lyn Stahl, is what this is about. Profiting off of the unsolved murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman is the issue, not the freedom of speech.
Rupert Murdoch, News Corp. chair, didn’t say ‘O.J. doesn’t have the right to say these things,’ he said News Corp. wouldn’t pay O.J. and give him a venue. Murdoch decided it wasn’t good for business.
In fact, any company that wants to step in and publish Simpson’s book has every right to. But, and I could be way off on this one, there probably isn’t a market for it.
Money will always trump vision. As a poet, I'm sure you've run into this before.
As a writer, I would be more pissed off that any celebrity with a half-baked idea can waltz into a publisher’s office and be offered a $3.5 million publishing deal and television special.
The “gravest threat to freedom of expression, and the First Amendment,” isn’t a media conglomerate rejecting written or filmed material. That happens all the time.
The gravest threat is not having an audience. Without an audience, it doesn’t matter what you say.
Read Jayne Lyn Stahl's editorial
HERE.Labels: editorial, media, O.J., pundits
