"As for the person who claims since the rightful heirs weren't nice people somehow it was okay for Smith to try to steal their money, good grief!"

Please do not attribute things to me that I did not say. I never said it was okay for anyone to 'steal' anything. I just found it interesting how you went on about the so-called 'rightful heirs' when in fact, the only 'rightful heirs' are the ones that the owner of a trust or estate designates. ANS claimed that J. Howard Marshall wanted to leave her part of his estate. His son claimed he did not-hence all the legal wrangling. I don't claim to know what the heck Marshall wanted but if he DID wish to leave ANS or heck, even his dog millions of dollars then that was his business. If ANS was telling the truth and felt she was entitled to it, then she had the legal right to pursue it in the courts.

Her's a thought: maybe neither one deserved the money and it should have gone to charity. Perhaps, but in the end it was J. Howard Marshall's money to dispose of as he wished-not his, not his son's, not ANS's and certainly not the public's.

That last line should have read Perhaps, but in the end it was J. Howard Marshall's money to dispose of as he wished- not his son's, not ANS's and certainly not the public's.

It's time for Britney to grow up. Sorry, but this is not your 'typical' uneducated single mother without resources. Rather, Spears is a woman who was savvy enough to build an estimated $100 million fortune by the time she was 20 and surround herself with some the best PR people in the biz. The problems she is experiencing now are largely a result of her own foolish choices.

Hopefully, she will get the help she needs in rehab and move on for the better. However, forgive me if I do not join the 'Poor Britney' chorus.

Anyone who has ever spend an hour or so perusing the chatboards and blogs that clog cyperspace know that there are some really screwed up people out there with access to a computer. However, what amazes me so much and what I don't see addressed too much is why so many people have appear to have the need need to spill their intermost thoughts and personal information on a blog or chatboard in the first place.

I personally know people who would never dream of answering a political survey for fear of revealing too much but have no problem setting up blogs that reveal their names, places of work, and everything else under the sun. Many even display pictures of themselves and their families. (An aside: I once worked with a woman that was 'amazed' when her then-husbad found out about her extra-marital affair despite the fact that she had documented these on her live journal page under her real name! When asked, she thought that no one would look there.)

While the comments that Ms. Sierra has been subjected to are deplorable, the fact remains that everyone on the worldwide web-male or female-is at risk for cyberbullying. If one is not willing or able to ignore it then perhaps the best thing to do sometimes is to leave and focus on one's life off the 'Net.

As someone who has never been a fan of Don Imus's and fails to get his appeal in general, I cannot say I will be too sad if he is canned over his insensitive remarks. However, I am hoping against hope that for once he'll show some dignity and quietly resign. For the sake of all of us, I hope he's not going to announce he's going to race rehab or trot out a few of his token Black friends in order to 'prove' he's not a racist.

For those who argue that this is somehow a violation of free speech, I counter that by pointing out that him losing his job with CBS radio and MSNBC will not ban him for seeking work elsewhere. It just means that they will no longer be paying him a lot of money for his inane drivel.

I really wish that those crying Free Speech would take a look at the Bill of Rights and see what exact is meant by freedom of speech. As Ms. Walsh pointed out in her post, the government has not censored Imus. He is free to shout his views in the middle of Times Square if he so desires. Neither he or anyone else for that matter has a 'right' to be an overpaid radio personality. That is a privilege and Imus lost that privilege when he made his remarks about those basketball players. He may be many things but one thing he isn't is a poster boy for the First Amendment.

You still don't explain how firing Imus is a blow to free speech. The man can continue to say whatever he wants be it in the form of a blog,letters or even on other tv and radio stations. It is one thing to lose his highly-paid job and whole 'nother thing for the government to say he cannot say certain things without persecution. If the latter happened, then I would be the first to be picketing on Imus's behalf. However, MSNBC is not the government. It is a private employer.

I'm defending his right to have a job being an obnoxious shock jock without a small, oversensitive contingency of busy bodies making him a symbolic sacrifice to the gods of good taste.

Neither Imus nor anyone else for matter has a 'right' to have a job as a shock jock. He is employed by a private organization which in turn has a set of rules and regulations. If I or anyone else cussed out my boss or made a racist comment about co-workers and as a result was fired no one would claim that my freedom of speech had been violated.