Imus Fired - Major Blow for Free Speech?

Question

OK, Imus is a jackass - he has been for almost 40 years. His remarks were offensive and warranted an apology. He gave one. Despite it all, he has now been fired. Not only was this thing blown way out of proportion, but this is a major blow to free speech.

Now listen carefully...

This is America. You do NOT have the right to not be offended. What ever happened to "stick and stones"? This was immature namecalling and nothing more. The man is a shock jock, for chrissakes! What do you expect?

Most importantly, we cannot allow free speech, no matter how offensive to some, to continue being stiffled. The First Amendment is first for a reason.

Answer 1

You are completely right. To build on your remark more specifically, nowhere in the Constitution is there a guaranteed right to not be offended. And, your observation about Imus as a jackass of long-time standing is very much correct, i.e. this isn't the first stupid thing he's said.

Having said all this, the issue is NOT one of free speech. The issue is whether one has a right to demand a platform for speech of any kind. What's certain is that the GOVERNMENT cannot stifle Imus legally - and indeed, the FCC has been silent on this one (as opposed to the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction fiasco). However, advertisers and the marketplace are free to make the judgement about whether to enable a voice like Imus' - and the marketplace appears to have spoken, albeit through the cynical filter of whether he can or cannot move product.

But is this the end of the discussion? What is Imus' right to be heard at all if NO media forum accepts him? Does he - or do any of us - have a right to demand a wide-span forum, or is our only guarantee the right to stand on a street corner and yell our lungs out?

I'm not posing this as a defense of Imus - I'm asking about free speech guarantees in general. Is Imus being denied free speech because he will now be heard by FEWER - as opposed to NO - people?

What IS the guarantee under the First Amendment?

p.s. I didn't know Sharpton and Jackson could cook.

Answer 2

Loaded question, and it appears more of a diatribe than a question. We've the freedom of speech. This is the reason Imus will not go to penal complex for announcing whatever. Nonetheless, the liberty of speech does no longer always safeguard any one from getting fired. If I work at Walmart and tell each patron that I believe they must quit having youngsters and wasting my tax money, i might have exercised my freedom of speech. Nevertheless, some speech may offend men and women. These persons can demand that the business hearth the man or woman, and so forth, when you consider that it can be ultimately the bottomline that affects a trade' decision. If the trade feels they may make much less cash with Imus than through getting rid of him, he'll be long past. If the business feels they are able to continue creating wealth, with out a negative photo detracting from that, they'll maintain Imus. It is now not in regards to the freedom of speech. It can be a trade, so the choice will probably be about what it should: cash.

Answer 3

Very simply, Imus being fired is another example of America being overly sensitive and completely, money driven. CBS would not have pulled Imus at all if the sponsors weren't bolting from his show. No sponsors means the company is losing money on the show, but they would eventually return once the whole event has blown over. The sponsors would have never left if they didn't fear the one or two people who would not use their products or stores anymore because they advertise on the show.

Everything is driven by the fact people are way too sensitive and the media jumped on this and blew it out of proportion. Who is Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to step and try to force someone out of job? to take his sponsors? and influence his listeners? Without the media stepping in and ruining this, he would've been fined by the FCC and life would've moved on. Besides, I'm sure his ratings wouldn't of gone down, probably increased. On top of everything, he'll probably end up on an XM or Sirius Radio channel eventually and be able to say whatever he wants. Just ask Howard Stern about that one.

Answer 4

I agree Imus was wrong with his remarks.

But what about the Hip-Hop and Rappers. Let's get real people, they say a lot more in a song then Imus did on his show.

Or is it OK, for the Rappers and Hip-Hoppers to degrade Women?

How would they like someone calling their Mother, Sister, Daughter or Wife a Ho. I know if someone called my Mother, Wife, Daughter or Sister a Ho. I would come to my families defense.


With all the News on Television, Radio and Newspaper about Imus comment. I see many famous people getting bent out of shape with Imus comment. But they come to the defense of the Rappers and Hip-Hop Artists. They will glorify them, instead of trying to get them to clean-up the music or ban them from degrading the women.

Answer 5

I believe what is most shocking is that they fired Imus, when their are clearly shows out there that a sooo much worse than Imus.

If clear channel and CBS can fire Imus, what about their other shock jocks that are worse than Imus.

Also, Al Sharpton attacks Imus for his comments but it is OK for black men to call women b*tches and ho's, and black people to say things about whites etc. That is a double standard.

This sh*t is what is the most messed up.

Answer 6

This has nothing whatsoever to do with free speech. Imus is free to go prancing up and down the street with his idiotic opinions if he wants to. This is a business decision. Why would CBS and MSNBC want to pay this guy millions of dollars when he is scaring away their advertisers? Nobody has shut him up. He was fired for doing a bad job.

Answer 7

There is definitely a double standard involved.

Look at Ann Coulter calling the widows of 9/11 greedy, moneygrubbing witches, or calling Edwards a f*ggot at the RNC, and all those good Christian CONservative GOP'ers cheered her on!

Look at Rush Limbaugh mocking Michael J. Fox and announcing that Mr. Fox was faking Parkinson disease.

Imus should've followed a page from Coulter's book and dismissed the accusations about him being a racist, and as Coulter did, he should've laughed and said he was only joking.

Rosie O'Donnel is attacked and demonized for giving her opinion, yet Donald Trump can say that GW Bush is the worst president in the history of the USA and he goes unscathed.

There's definitely a double standard going on and I wonder had Imus left the 'nappy head' part off and just referred to the women as 'ho's' if that would've been acceptable.

After all, Ann Coulter basically implied that the 9/11 widows were "ho's" and Americans seem to agree with her!

Answer 8

Don Imus is free to say whatever he likes. The government is not imprisoning him for his words. But he did work for a commerical enterprise. The business owners felt that he would negatively impact their profits, so he was fired. No one is stopping Don from speaking, the owners of the radio station just don't want him doing it with their equipment. The company is exercising its right to free speech.

Answer 9

Yes, I don't believe this will have any effect on free speech. I think the firing of Imus only shows one thing. It shows that this society that we live on will put down the hammer on a white man who makes racist/sexist remarks, but rappers and comedians are free to do so as they please. As bad as Imus's comments were, i think the media has blown this way out of proportion.

But now that he has been fired, the society and media must start being consistent and target other people who use these sexist/racist comments as well.

Answer 10

A bigger blow against free speech is people who don't understand the first amendment and don't understand that the situation with Don Imus isn't a free speech issue. He worked for a privately owned company and they are free to fire him for whatever reason they choose.