Your ignorance - or amnesia, I'm not sure which - is breathtaking. A few librarians teeing off on a book with a single "dirty" word is NOTHING compared to the cases I've already mentioned from the past 50-odd years: Lolita, Howl and the legal hounding of Lenny Bruce.

Since the death of Lenny Bruce there has been only one case in which someone's speech was nearly censored. That case involved George Carlin's "Seven Bad Words You Can't Say On TV", and it was won by Carlin. That was thirty years ago.

Now there is a good chance that the bad old days will return with a vengance, with the Imus "case" serving as a precedent. That's my point. Splitting hairs between public and "private" speech is meaningless. Given that something like 90% of disseminated speech - in other words, speech that is readily available to the public - is controlled by private interests, don't you think the First Amendment should be applied even if only as a cultural principle?

CBS just fired Imus.

XM satellite radio anyone?

Rob Anderson. It is good to hear the clear thinking. For a moment I thought I heard the crackling of burning books. Most UL's haven't a clue. When Wolf wrote Bonfires, he pegged the Right Reverend Tax Deferred Sharpton to the wall. Along with many N.Y.C. officials. Unfortunately when they made the film version Mr. S's Image had to change if the film was to be made in New York, not just RRS, many others I want to be fair. I believe that may have been a book burning of sorts. That said, It is good to read the text of reason. " I may not agree with what you say , but I will defend with my life your right to say it."

Given that some percentage of disseminated speech is controlled by private interests, I think that the market should do its job.

NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO HAVE HIS SPEECH DISSEMINATED.

We simply have the right to free speech.

I mentioned the children's book because kids aren't controlling what they can consume: adults are. That makes censoring school books extra-heinous by my standard.

And you can fight to have the First Amendment applied as a cultural principle all day, but you'll only make an impact on CBS if a signifigant percentage of their target audience joins you.

If a significant percentage thinks Imus is a schmuck, then he may find himself financially disenfranchised from his prior status, free speech intact.

If you have a petition asking CBS to apply the First Amendment as a cultural principle, I'll sign it, but I have no personal desire to see Imus reinstated. And Imus getting fired is simply NOT a curtailment of his free speech.

He can go to another station, to satellite radio, to the internet, to basic cable...if people want to consume him, some one will be willing to make money off of that desire.

So the ONLY question is Imus' monetary value, which will determine corporate involvement.

Even if NO ONE ELSE HIRES him, his free speech is still intact.

to those black posters who, two hours earlier being asked (by me) whether they favored being represented by sharpton (he was, at that moment, meeting with les moonves, the head of CBS), refrained from responding. i left myself wide open. nevertheless NONE responded, in spite of some provocation. and i'm SURE some are out there, some big smiles on black faces, gloating over the dressing down les moonves, a jew, had to take from sharpton. and finding out, a half hour ago, Imus was fired. no more Imus. why the restraint? concern for my feelings? i think there was a *bit* of that, i've made friends out there - after some big fights we made up. but i think it was mostly out of respect - not of me - but of my keeping my black AND jewish family together. we are lower middle class and it's not a "political" marriage, just an ordinary one. perhaps happier than most, but other than that, very ordinary. one of a father's jobs is to protect his family's egos and it's hard sometimes with the black community and the jewish community always at each other's throats. RealName, THEY GET IT! jews don't like sharpton - and in the privacy of their own thoughts they know why and understand. but blacks feel they have REAL ENEMIES out there, just as jews do. they don't want to criticize him in public because they don't want to give ammunition to those real enemies. same as jews. and by the way, black posters, I KNOW WHO YOU ARE! (and thanks so very much).

go ahead and cheer!

I have given this some serious thought, admittedly it is 5:30 and there isn't much left between the ears, but we could resurrect "Tail Gunner Joe " and start the process all over again.

No one is challenging Imus' right to say anything.

He's not in prison, he just got fired.

He has temporarily been denied his prior access to a nationally syndicated platform owned by his employer, but he was not "censored" and is still legally perfectly free to speak.

His speech was his product, and CBS has discontinued it.

If Wal-Mart stops carrying your toilet paper, that doesn't mean it was outlawed.

If enough people still want it, Target will eventually sell it, or you'll order it from the internet.

he'll be on satellite just like stern.

Emily,

I believe that it goes a little deeper than that. Hate mongering is cruel and unjust , but it is not crime, if it is, the courts will make that dicision.

Dumping on someone no matter how, ugly and tasteless, is not a violation of the law and if we make it so we weaken our very foundations. Remember many politicians in their zeal for re-election will through the baby out with the bath water.

It boils down to numbers. If people did not like him he wouldn't be on the air. Basically this a tempest in a tea pot. Now if you want to nail a person that has made a career of ruining people's lives read Al Sharpton's bio. He is right up there with Joseph McCarthy.