No J

I’m not a censorship guy. So I was hoping that the people who didn’t like the idea of the admittedly outrageous special “O.J. Simpson: If I Did It, Here’s How It Happened” would have simply not watched.

It probably would have done badly in the ratings anyway (the first half was running opposite “The Bachelor: Rome” finale and “Heroes”).

But the outraged reaction continued – based entirely of course on the idea of the special and not a minute of the special itself, which nobody has seen. And over the weekend the more reactionary affiliate groups were either removing the show from their schedules or considering it.

So like the Republican complainers who won when CBS canned its sweeps movie "The Reagans" becuase they didn't approve of what they heard it was going to be, News Corp. overlord Rupert Murdoch announced that he was dumping the idea of the special and the book Monday. With the action, he was able to be the hero, saving the world from a crisis he earlier began.

And not only does it leave us with a sweeps minus any spark whatsoever, we’ll never know how bad it really would have been.

From the start, the ludicrous book and TV deal “If I Did It” sounded like something O.J. was talked into do doing – by a horrible, bottom-feeding, publicity-seeeking publisher.

After all, if Simpson wanted to cash in on the long ordeal, he surely would have done it long before now.

Instead, the concept behind the last minute sweeps entry (and book) always sounded more like one of those forced confessions you'd see on a bad procedural cop show. After hours (or in this case, years) of a guy saying he didn’t do it, you get the suspect to talk about how they’d do it if they had. Soon enough you’ve either kickstarted or coerced that confession you’ve long sought.

Regan has had worked overtime to issue an explanation for the project – she was doing it for all the abused women, she said, somewhat perplexingly. She'd been abused herself, she said, though that seemed beside the point.

And printing such a book doesn’t mean she endorses it – that’s why Mein Kamph is in print. But equating Simpson to Hitler wasn’t exactly going to make her case.

It was a no-brainer that the reaction to such a provocatively titled special would be virulent (especially among those whose heat was stoked by talk radio hosts who love black and white issues). By Monday, I saw on CNN that there was tape of crazed video vigilantes stomping DVD copies of what? “The Naked Gun" and "Naked Gun 2 1/2”? (I didn’t have the heart to turn the sound up).

For a moment, the Dixie Chicks or John Kerrey (or any other recent target of radio bluster overkill) were off the hot seat to make way for the newest universal object of extreme scorn.

What’s lost in all these hateful statements about “everybody knows he did it” and letting the killer have this forum to gloat is the fact that he was found not guilty of the murder he was accused of. There is the real possibility, ladies and gentlemen, that he did not do it, and the criminal finding by a jury of his peers was the correct one.

Yes, a civil trial found him liable for the killings in a wrongful death suit, so does that cancel out the criminal verdict? Which one takes precedence? He’s not in jail, so if we believe in the U.S. justice system, then he didn’t do it, right?

Already I can feel the flames coming, from those throngs who know he did it, who will say everybody knows he did it (except apparently the jury), and who must have sifted through every bit of evidence and testimony just as the jury did to be experts in their unshakable verdict. (Oh, why have the trial in the first place, right?)

Simpson may deserve a chance to explain himself once or twice, every so often, if the public demand is there. But not with a premise like this one did, intended to both twist his story and inflame the people.

But by canceling the special altogether and burning the books that must have been started to be printed by now, has a whiff of the Hitler Regan cited as well.

But enjoy your reruns of “House” and "Bones" instead.