Imus' comments

[Squatch]

Though I believe that most, if not all, DUers can agree that what he said was reprehensible, should his speech be tolerated as protected under the 1st Amendment?

[Squatch]

1. And please pardon the clunky wording of the OP.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Protected or not is entirely irrelevant.

Nobody's arguing it's not his first amendment right.

This is some kind of weird conservative distraction.

[ContraBass Black]

3. Though his speech is protected, no one is obligated to listen or pay him.

People should do neither.

[Solo_in_MD]

26. DING DING DING...We have a winner as in someone who understands how the real world works.

Imus will remain as long as it is profitable for the networks that carry him. Should his numbers drop, he may well be gone. I have never listened to him and am not about to start.

If its offensive language that has so many in a twitter, look at thug rap and even some of the statements Sharpton has made in the past. As bad if not worse. Misogynist and racial offensive speech is not limited to just white male shock jocks

[walldude]

4. Yes it should be tolerated, that doesn't mean his employer

has to put up with it. He's made many racist statements over the years, it's time to put his way of thinking out to pasture.

[TahitiNut]

5. "Protected" does NOT mean an unhindered privilege to use the public air waves.

The use of the public broadcast spectrum, including the public easements by which cable media reach homes, is a privilege, not a right. I have no problem with respecting such rights absent such public licenses ... but I do not regard hate speech as 'protected' on the broadcast spectrum any more than pornography and adult materials.

Furthermore, the media businesses and corporations operate under public licenses to do business "in the public interest." Those licenses are the epitome of entitlements - privileges.

[Squatch]

6. Can you reference laws/codes/policies/whatever that clearly

classify what he said as "hate speech"?

They were racist/sexist words, but I'm not sure they can be qualified as hate speech.

[Solo_in_MD]

25. There aren't any.

[Ganja Ninja]

7. It's offensive and protected but that doesn't mean we have to ...

tolerate it. He can make all the racists remarks he wants and he can do it on the back of a mule on his ranch instead of on a national radio show.

[rosesaylavee]

8. He should be fired.

This is not the first time he has used hate speech.

Not a first amendment issue.

[Ian David]

9. Amazing, that the final straw that breaks the camel's back on Imus's offensiveness...

will be over a nasty comment about something as un-important as SPORTS?

I'm not saying that his racist comment itself was un-important.

But of all the things to kill your career over... a comment about SPORTS?

If he was going to say something racist about Condi Rice... at least that would be an important topic to be racist about.

This is like The Crocodile Hunter getting killed by a relatively harmless stingray after wrestling with alligators and poisonous snakes all his life.

I agree that his speech was Constitutionally protected, but that does not mean we should not allow the free market to work and purge him from the airwaves due to commercial and consumer demand. In other words, he shouldn't go to jail, but we sure shouldn't be asked to subsidize it from our pockets. He should be gone.

But we also have to wonder... would the MSM have made such a big deal about this if Imus hadn't recently started turning on Bush and his Republick Party corporate masters?

Or, alternatively...

Wouldn't he have been gone sooner, for saying much worse, if he hadn't (until recently) been a relatively loyal Repuke tool?

[NormanYorkstein]

10. no it was over something IMPORTANT

Human beings who he chose to denigrate with racist and sexist slurs. That's important.

[Ian David]

13. What I meant was...

that what Imus said was wrong in an important way, but that the topic he was discussing when he did it-- sports-- was relatively unimportant.

[NormanYorkstein]

16. but the context was unimportant

it wouldn't have made a difference if it was about sports or politics or movies or whatever.

[Ian David]

19. The context makes no difference to the severity or seriousness of the offence.

However, I think it speaks volumes about the recklessness of Don Imus, and the lack of concern he had about what comes out of his mouth.

[SayitAintSo]

21. I think you make an important point

Imus has in recent times become even more of a political critic to those in power - the Bushies, war in Iraq, big Pharmaceuticals, etc. He does have a huge following. This doesn't excuse his bad taste and poor choice of words, but it may have been a convenient way to begin to silence him. Just a theory....

[qanda]

11. Was someone calling for him to be arrested?

I don't understand this poll.

[wicket]

12. It's protected speech, but that doesn't apply to his employment

His employer can fire him for it.

[Vidar]

14. He shouldn't be jailed, just fired.

[medeak]

15. should be fined by FCC n/t

[ContraBass Black]

17. If I walk into work and say, "fuck you all," my speech is protected

But my ass is fired.

[porphyrian]

18. I want all racists to be able to speak their mind.

It makes it easier to identify them. That doesn't mean they should go unchallenged.

[Hobarticus]

23. BINGO!

I want to know up front who I'm dealing with.

[KoKo]

20. The "Peoples Airwaves" (before they were auctioned off) should not be

a conduit for Racist Hate Speech.

[Solo_in_MD]

24. The remove all the thug rappers too, and if you don't why then target Imus?

[Turbineguy]

22. Maybe I'm wrong here

but I thought the Bill Of Rights defined the relationship between the Government and the Citizens. So if Imus was talking about the government his speech would be protected. But he wasn't so it isn't.

[Solo_in_MD]

27. Sort of

The government can not take Imus to court or otherwise punish him for this. We, his employer, or any not government agency is free to ignore, deride, repudiate, and refuse to have anything to do with him.