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.

War is a very profitable adventure in some circles. Therefore our government has an obligation to those shareholders to always be attacking someone.

Okay okay okay, we have your point----You are opposed to the right of MSNBC television or CBS radio to terminate an employee for whatever reason they want.

In your perfect world, who should be appointed to the panel that decides if a business can terminate an employee or not?

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.

What a lousy analogy. Disregarding your remark about "racist comments" (as yet, nobody has attempted to explain how his comment was "racist," they just throw the word out and let it stand unchallenged). His job was being outrageous and offensive, and a group of people (not even listeners!), came in and told his boss, "he's being outrageous and offensive," and his boss fired him for it.

Kim, can you describe for me the difference between you hanging out with your friends, swapping jokes, telling stories, speaking your mind, and you sitting in a room by yourself talking to a bare wall?

Imus made these comments when he was on air. He was not hanging out with friends or in a private place when he made these comments as an employee of MSNBC. He knew that he was on the air and his remarks would be heard by everyone. This was not an overheard conversation nor was anyone illegally recording him when he made these comments.

"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."

What? Of course they exercised their right via public statements. Just because YOU think they should have said something different or didn't like, or perhaps agree, with what they said (though I do think some siad they were offended)or the action they took doesn't mean that they didn't exercise their rights. They may not have followed the JM Walker standard for counter speech but that's your issue not theirs.

"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."

"Right to have a job being an obnoxious shock jock...."? Where is this right? I'd love to have this right. Especially if it came with the caveat that I couldn't be fired if I said something stupid and someone took action. Where do I sign up?

His job was being outrageous and offensive, and a group of people (not even listeners!), came in and told his boss, "he's being outrageous and offensive," and his boss fired him for it.

So let me get this right: Don Imus was just doing his job and his boss fired him. It makes no difference that some people (including listeners) found the remarks about 'nappy headed hos' racist and misgynistic. It makes no difference that two sponsors decided to drop the show. Based on this argument, Imus had a right to keep his job while MSNBC which like most companies I assume is in the business to make money should have let him keep his job even if it were to hurt them.

I guess my question would be under what circumstances does a boss have the right to fire an employee?

Earl Butz for one (Secy of Agriculture in 1976). he also made nasy jokes about *others* (the site i visited mentioned italians), but it was the racist one that got him fired. why? i think it's a bone that the white establishment throws to the blacks - in lieu of anything *real*.

It's a really interesting question.

JM Walker wrote: "as yet, nobody has attempted to explain how his comment was 'racist,' they just throw the word out and let it stand unchallenged."

Al Sharpton and others have explicitly explained why they found his comment racist, though I'm not necessarily inclined to agree with them.

I also don't necessarily "approve" of MSNBC dropping Imus for racism.

I just wholeheartedly believe he sucks, and deserves to be allowed to drift gently into aging blowhard obscurity. I approve of MSNBC's actions in this direction, though they may unfortunately have the opposite effect.

I'm curious: to those who believe that Imus' comment was NOT racist...

could you perhaps give us an example of an ACTUAL racist comment?

For contrast?

I swear not to take it out of context and call you racist, and I'll get your back if anyone does.

But are the Imus supporters those who don't believe in racism at all?

Or just those who don't think he's an example of it?

and you looked like a fool. If Imus is wrong and should be fired then so should the rappers and corporate executives that support them. You can't cleanly seperate the two.

It's clear that the only reason this is worthy of your attention is because you hated Imus before he said this and now you see a chance to take him down.

You said that this would be a precedent setting event but as the black commentator said in response to that we all know that isn't true.

Once this is done you'll go back to your catfight with Michelle Malkin.