Posted on 08/30/2007 9:46:51 PM PDT by james500
Barnes & Noble Inc. has changed its mind about the new O.J. Simpson book.
After saying it would not stock copies of "If I Did It" in its stores, citing lack of customer demand, the chain told The Associated Press on Thursday that it would indeed carry the book.
Since the initial decision on Aug. 21 against stocking the book, but selling it online, Barnes & Noble spokeswoman Mary Ellen Keating said: "We've been monitoring the pre-orders and customer requests and have concluded that enough customers have expressed interest in buying the book to warrant stocking it in our stores. We do not intend to promote the book but we will stock it in our stores because our customers are asking for it."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I guess that covers the whole messy morality issue.
Barnes and Ignoble
We'd like to assure the Ameican public that the profit motive is alive and well even though Nicole and Ron aren't.
I remember a great line from when a reporter went to OJ’s country club to try to interview him a couple of years after the trial. “Have you seen OJ?” he asked a greenskeeper. “He’s on 14, looking for clues” came the reply.
Ca-ching!
Barnes and Ignoble
"Well, at least we forced Simpson to change the name of the book. After he did so, we felt better about stocking it."
So we'll be selling the book, "Even If He Did it".
Or, “So What if I did it!”
This should be marketed with a plain brown dust jacket. I’d be thoroughly embarassed to admit that I’d pay money for this POS.
That might make publication a little less morally messy for those worried about OJ pocketing the cash.
If I stocked it.
Yep, no kidding...
Disgusting!
If the book is published and people want to buy it, then B&N should stock and sell it. They have thousands of books that I would find offensive but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t sell them. If this particular book bothers anyone, my advice would be to not buy it.
The problem with censorship is, who exactly gets to determine what is acceptable for others to read?
Never stand between a bad man determined to hang himself and the rope.
My point was that they obviously don’t consider it a shining moment in B&N history or else they would promote it happily. ESPECIALLY if it rankles fascist book censors. This is B&N after all. So they’re embarrassed by it but not so much that they’ll reject making money off of it. Not a big deal, just an observation.
“The problem with censorship is, who exactly gets to determine what is acceptable for others to read?”
People in government but the New York Times seems to thwart that effort regularly.
After the Goldman's were awarded the rights 
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.