Did Rupert Murdoch make the right decision not to publish O.J. Simpson's book or broadcast his interview? I believe he did.

I was pleased, like many, to see on Jeffrey Seglin's excellent ethics blog that he "was relieved when News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch finally pulled the plug on (the) book and television interview about how he might have murdered his ex-wife."

It is unfortunate that the decision was made at the last minute and apparently only because of the public outcry.

It is interesting, however, to think about the reasons behind the outcry. Why were so many people so upset? What were the values that would have been violated had the book been published and the interview aired? Let me list just a few:

Decency:
Chris MacDonald in his article Ethics Pay (or at Least "lack of ethics costs") believes that "there are limits to the public appetite for sleaze." He is right. Community standards have always been use in determining what is acceptable and what is not, in publishing and broadcast. In this case the community at large has spoken.

Respect:
The publication and interview would have certainly displayed a total lack of respect for the feelings of the victims' families, and the memory of the victims themselves.

Dignity:
I do not believe anyone would have been interested in figments of his imagination. It was the occult quasi-obscene "confession" that would have motivated people to read.

Justice:
The Son of Sam laws prohibits anyone who has committed a crime to benefit financially by movie and book rights. In this case, the law would most likely have been circumvented but the idea that he could profit, even indirectly from the publication was abhorrent to many.

Some might object that the decision not to publish was a form of censorship. We usually oppose censorship because of the limits it imposes on our freedom. Ethics is very often a question of limits, of where you draw the line.

In Ruder Finn's Guideline on Ethics we state that:

"we don't want to be involved in any public relations activities that we believe ...curbs free speech."

Does that mean that we oppose all form of censorship? I think not. There are limits as to what is acceptable and what is not. Who today would advocate the publication of a book praising African American slavery, denying the Holocaust, or advocating child abuse?

A peoples' sense of outrage can sometimes be a healthy sign, and salutary to society in protecting it from assault on its values.