I happen to have a moderate position on this issue, in spite of my liberal, bleeding-heart convictions. Imus has a right to his opinion on all topics, including the Rutgers Women's basketball team. He has a right to expect not to be censored for the content of his speech. The FCC may hold sway on the types of words he chooses to use on the public airwaves, but just as white supremicists can spill their bile on-air and Dave Chapelle can poke fun at black and white America and Steve Harvey can use his radio show to portray southern whites as red-necked racists, Imus, however unenlightened, can call basketball players "nappy-headed hos". I'm sorry, but that's his right.

Where Joan has it right is that CBS Radio and MSNBC are under no requirements to provide him with a forum. Imus may have the right to say what he said, but WFAN radio is not under any obligation to provide him with a 50,000 watt megaphone.

Where I take issue with Joan's position is the idea that CBS and MSNBC have some sort of obligation to remove his megaphone for the public good. This isn't the purpose of their companies. CBS and MSNBC have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to provide maximum profit. If Imus, warts and all, is ultimately more valuable to the company than he is currently costing them in ad revenue, the broadcasters should by all means keep him on the air. If people will listen to him anyway, and ad revenues will continue to stream in anyway, then screw the Rutgers Women's basketball team and their outrage. Business is business.

I second what he said.

All of the dancing around can't obscure the fact that Imus exercised his supposed right via his radio show and the people who were insulted by his comments exercised theirs via public statements.

They didn't "exercise their [rights] via public statements." They didn't say, "We heard Imus said this. We find it offensive." They said, "He's a racist. He's a misogynist, we demand his head on a platter." MSNBC capitulated. It was not democracy in action. It was the result of a tiny group of PC lobbyists creating a jaw-dropping media frenzy during what I can only pray was a slow news week.

Again, that you don't like the outcome doesn't mean that the abstract principle is being violated and that you don't think Imus's comment merited protest is irrelevant. Where is this odd notion that Free Speech is some sort of absolute that's immune to restrictions or, more importantly, consequences coming from? That doesn't make sense.

I have no love for Imus. I'm not rallying for my boy here. 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.

Taste is not a moral absolute, KStone. If a media figure you love and value said something that another group found offensive, and they lobbied to get him or her fired, I'd rage just as hard against the machine.

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.

All of the dancing around can't obscure the fact that Imus exercised his supposed right via his radio show and the people who were insulted by his comments exercised theirs via public statements.

Again, that you don't like the outcome doesn't mean that the abstract principle is being violated and that you don't think Imus's comment merited protest is irrelevant. Where is this odd notion that Free Speech is some sort of absolute that's immune to restrictions or, more importantly, consequences coming from? That doesn't make sense.

I realize Imus is still employed and that MSNBC just dropped him. I should've clarified that in my previous post. Apologies.

The first amendment and freedom of speech means that anyone who gets a gig as a talk show host gets to keep that job until he dies.

Your*

Proofreading is fun!

As an off-topic aside, RIP Kurt Vonnegut. To paraphrase your eulogy of Isaac Asimov before a group of Humanists years ago, "He's with God now."

"will black women forever be victims of hair politics? Face it, the dominant culture celebrates eurocentric standards of beauty" Almond Joy. starting from that torture device, the soul comb, to bizarrely blond tyra banks. bring back the afro!

So? How was Imus denied that "right"? Nobody stopped him from saying what he said. They just responded to what he said. That you don't like the response is your problem. Apparently, to some Free Speech means Free Consequences. Wrapping yourself in the flag and hurrumping about guiding principles of the nation is a little much.

But, I'm sort of amazed at this evolving free speech "right" to listen to your favorite radio/tv personality.

A small group of individuals created a media frenzy that resulted in the man losing his job and his forum over comments that, given the context and the relative state of discourse in the country, I can, with some conviction, describe only as benign.

He didn't break any laws. He didn't even violate any FCC decency standards. This was a PC witch hunt.

My point stands. What he said was unpopular among some (who don't even listen to his show no less), but it hardly qualifies as "hate speech," and if you or anyone else thinks it does, then the entire idea of "hate speech" has been hopelessly devalued to the point of absurdity.

I defend anyone's right to say unpopular things, be they Democrat or Republican, "conservative" or "liberal." Valuing a principle, even when it isn't politically expedient to do so, is not the same as wrapping oneself in the flag. You're cheap shot at me notwithstanding, you're smart enough to know the difference, KStone. I'm certain of that.