it'll just migrate to satellite and the net. it'll cost. TV and radio, under the FCC, i think will become more "family friendly" with all that implies.

It appears we were BOTH right. Imus is gone.

Gee...I wonder who the right wing will go after first in retaliation? Hmmm...I'm betting Rosie O'Donnel. But maybe not. Perhaps since Ward Churchill was finally fired from his tenured sinecure in academia after years of right-wing agitation, Noam Chomsky will be next on the hit list. Won't that be nice?

Or maybe Bill Maher - who claims to be a libertarian but sure sounds like a flaming leftist - will get the axe. Who knows? It doesn't matter who goes next, because the precedent has been set. And unlike legal precedents, this one can't be challenged in court.

Incidentally, to those of you like me who may despise Don Imus's program but believe he has been censored, and would like to do something about it, please go to:

http://wwwpolychom.blogspot.com

There you will find - at least after a few minutes - a blog post outlining my plans to launch a national protest and boycott of CBS and its parent company. Stay tuned; this ain't over yet.

But in this situation there is really no disproportion between Imus' "crime" and his "punishment."

Imus' "hate-mongering" was not unduly censored by an entity larger than that to which he was already accountable.

No one has made what Imus said a crime: that's the very important distinction seemingly being missed here.

I understand the worry that speech itself will BECOME a crime (politicians, the slippery slope, etc.) but I simply think the causal connection between this incident and that proposed eventuality is being greatly exaggerated for effect.

And frankly, I see Imus' supporters mirroring the exact behavior they object to.

Just as this incident was business as usual for Imus, his firing is simply one publicized example of an entertainment figure being let go for the sin of displeasing his employer by bringing undue negative attention.

HarperCollins "fired" OJ's book, Judith Reagan got fired FOR OJ's book, Sumner Redstone fired Tom Cruise, ABC fired Ellen DeGeneres and Bill Maher...ad infinitum. The publicized incident is rarely the only straw: it's usually just the last.

So the fact that Imus' dismissal has suddenly caused people to hear jackboots approaching could easily be cast as the same "overreacting" they're accusing CBS & MSNBC of.

Although members of the right and left agree on few things, the obligation of the establishment to censor or eliminate speech with which the establishment disagrees appears to cross political lines. Both the Imus comments and Janet Jackson's boob allowed people to hop on their high horse and show just how superior they are. To hell with freedom of speech...

Does anyone really believe that Imus' comments needed any response other than those made by the young women on the Rutgers team? Nobody hearing them speak could possibly believe the team was a bunch of "nappy-headed hos."

Let speech be answered with more speech, and try to resist the hypocrisy of the self-righteous.

No matter which way you sway on the subject, they should have fired him on Monday(next). This would have allowed him to complete his telethon(raises millions for charity) with enormous attention. At least some good could have come from this spectacle.

After the firing by CBS, Leslie Mooves made the following statement: “Those who have spoken with us the last few days represent people of goodwill from all segments of our society — all races, economic groups, men and women alike. In our meetings with concerned groups, there has been much discussion of the effect language like this has on our young people, particularly young women of color trying to make their way in this society.”

I understand Mr. Moonves need to emphasize that this is particularly true of "young women of color." However, this type of language effects all of our children. It's unfortunate that it took an insensitive and stupid radio shock jock, who probably thought he was being "cool" or "hip" or "down," to finally bring the point home. It would be sad if we miss this opportunity to eliminate the hateful speech that permeates so much of our society, no matter where or who it comes from.

Don Imus' freedom of speech is alive & well.

The establishment did NOT, in this case, censor or eliminate speech with which the establishment disagreed.

A corporation fired an employee.

Imus can continue to say what he likes where he likes, but he will no longer be subsidized by CBS or have access to their distribution tools.

His speech has not been "eliminated", it's just had its volume lowered by the owner of the megaphone.

i think it *is* over.

If it were all just so easy - that is to fire those who fill the airwaves with hate speak? Unfortunately, the issions of listeners that cleave to such shows are alive and well and without someone to release a lot of their pent-up hatred by listening to someone vent about minorities, women and gays. Being politicaaly correct hasn't solved the racial and gender issues in this country. The unhappy, disinfranchised males found comfort in the crude frat humor that made Imus famous and filled his bank accounts with abundance. As much as we'd like to think that Imus was the problem, Imus and his ideals are only the symbol of a bubbling hatred that is simmering in the hearts and egos of a lot of American males.

Nearly all major media in this country has been concentrated into ten giant corporations. Imus has just been censored by one-fifth of them (G.E. and Viacom). The implication that, because Imus can still pass out fliers on the street corner, freedom of speech has not been affected, ignores significant realities.

A major problem involving race relations in this country is that we can't even talk about race issues in large public forums. Imagine a video of Imus' comments followed immediately by a video of those accomplished, classy young women and their responses. How is censorship a preferred approach?

For myself, even though I may personally agree with some views enforced by corporate media, I don't trust corporate media to be the arbiter of what opinions I get to hear or not hear. Trusting them to decide what is suitable for public dissemination has led to serious misinformation (e.g. 9/11=Osama bin Laden=Saddam Hussein=WMD=war).