"If you find what he says offensive or otherwise objectionable, turn it off. ... The show will stop existing if no one's listening. So stop listening."

I would say I agree with you there, but there's the additional problem of the media blitz covering the story, saturating their news broadcasts and websites and newspapers with it, and with each additional news coverage story on it, the insulting language that began this whole thing is repeated. So it's a bit bigger in a way than just one person saying something stupid and racist ... I mean, I don't listen to Imus at all, ever, yet I've had to hear his stupid fucking comment at least 50 times from different media sources in the past week just when all I'm trying to do is check out what's happening in the news. And the more I hear it, the more offensive I find it ... so if it's a hurtful comment to the people most directly affected, the basketball team he referred to, then why does everybody make them, and the rest of us, hear it again over and over and over and over again, by continually repeating it and harping on it, again and again and again? Is it so newsworthy that it's worth quoting a stupid racist remark over and over and over again in all kinds of national broadcasts? If the point is to just have an open dialogue about race issues, why can't that be done without making this one person and one remark so central to the discussion that people are subjected to it no matter what media source they choose to listen to in order to get their news? I don't know, I'm just asking. And procrastinating from writing a brief I'm supposed to be writing right now.

Do you think that part of the problem may be that this was being simulcast by MSNBC, rather than a purely-entertainment broadcast like Howard Stern? (Or the fact that Imus can be heard for free on any radio station carrying his broadcast, whereas Stern's programs are only available on satellite radio.)

The more I think about this, the more I think that it's not just the comments, but the forum itself. As in, it's okay to say offensive things, but only in places where those who WANT to hear them can seek them out (and not, as you suggest, where those who DON'T want to hear them can just turn them off). Free speech is still our right, but only as long as it doesn't cost media conglomerates thousands of dollars in FCC fines and costs to compensate for sponsors fleeing for networks with family-friendly fare.

All I know is that the day when someone gets lambasted in the media for making fun of Canadians is the day that I move to, well...Canada.

"conservative Howard Stern"? You've got to be kidding. We don't want him. Only compared to the likes of a Howerd Stern could he be considered conservative.

Let us see...

He's a vegetarian.
Favors crude humor.
He famously called Rush Limbaugh "a fat, pill-popping loser"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Imus

Sadielady,
I think you bring up a really great point: if what he said is so bad that he apparently deserves to get fired, then why the hell repeat it over and over again? And, I guess, my own post, which quoted Mr. Imus's remarks, is just as guilty of having done that. I don't know why the mainstream media does it, but I did it simply to let the reader make their own decision about whether the comment was offensive. I've criticized some of the students that go to my school for starting a firestorm without ever giving a satisfactory acount of what happened, so I didn't think it would be fair for me to talk about something like this without including the "offensive" language, although perhaps I could be faulted for not assuming that people would know what he said without my reprinting it.

But there's also another issue: as I said, it's perfectly within the protester's rights to protest and make a big deal out of this. However, there are two consequences of doing that. First, they have to be willing to publicize not only their own outrage, but the original comment as well. Second, as a result of the first consequence, any controversial thing like this will necessarily increase the amount of people that see or hear the comments. Whether that's good or bad, I don't know, but it's the nature of the beast.

Dangerous Mind,
I guess I disagree with you about what forum is appropriate for private things. I take you to believe, based on your comment, that public things (like, for example, the airwaves or library mall) should be free of offensive speech. I assume that this attitude comes from the thought that everyone should feel comfortable (read: unoffended) in public. I'm definitely sympathetic with that mindset--I don't want people to be afraid to leave their houses--but I don't agree with it.

Like I've said, there is an absolute right to offend, and that right would be meaningless if I was only able to exercise it in places where people have consented to let me speak freely. For me, the very meaning of free speech is being able to speak freely even in places where your speech is unpopular and unwelcome.

Anon,
Like I said, I've never listened to Mr. Imus's show--I was just going from what I've heard. And, let's be honest, you don't have to be a raging liberal to call Rush Limbaugh a fat, pill-popping loser.

I don't think he should have been fired. However, the right that people have to protest is what drove sponsers to drop the Imus show, which prompted CBS to eventually fire him... isn't this exactly the natural reaction that you described? Based on this, why shouldn't he have been fired?

I forgot to mention in my previous post that there is a train of thought that Imus was such a dickhead in private that it wouldn't have taken too much to reach the tipping point where he'd be gone, apparently alot of MSNBC people hated him. Also, you should check out this article by Jason Whtlock; I think its the best article I've read on the situation, which I soon hope to never read about again.

"Freedom" of speech is not free at all. There are consequences to your actions and words. Imus is paying the price for his "free" speech. I am certain that he was fired because there was A LOT of pressure placed on sponsors of the program. He wouldn't have gotten fired if there wasn't. I believe this because he was initially suspended for two weeks. I don't think his employers anticipated the financial pressures that they ultimately faced. So it was the threat of boycotts and lost revenue that triggered his firing. The "free" market in action. Of course there is freedom of speech, but watch what you say, when you say it and to who you say it.

Anonymous,
Yeah, obviously everyone here is within their rights: Mr. Imus had the right to say it, people have the right to be pissed and protest, and CBS had the right to fire him.

My point was merely that it was stupid of Mr. Imus to say what he said (he should have known that it was going to bite him in the ass), it was stupid of people to be pissed and protest (it was a fucking joke and they don't have the right to dictate what other people can listen to), and it was stupid of CBS to fire Mr. Imus (they've set the precedent that they're going to cave to an angry mob, not to mention the fact that I bet the ratings for the show went up and they could have made money from different advertisers). So I don't think anyone did anything wrong--except for possibly CBS--but I do think a lot of people did a lot of stupid things.

NT,
Obviously freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. I can write almost whatever I want on this blog without exposing myself to negative legal consequences. However, I don't write about work or certain aspects of my life precisely because I am aware of the consequences of free speech. I'm aware of these conseqences even though a pretty small segment of society reads my blog.

Mr. Imus, with his millions of daily listeners, should have been aware of these same consequences. The fact that he either wasn't or didn't consider them is exactly why I think what he did was stupid.

Ismael, if there weren't already people like you saying exactly how I feel about this, I'd have to go on a rant myself. Suffice it to say that although I generally don't condone saying things with the express intent of offending people, we don't have the right not to be offended. Quashing someone's right to express an opinion because it is controversial or offensive to certain people is censorship, plain and simple. Punishing someone for expressing such an opinion is unacceptable.

On the other hand, those who control forums where such opinions are expressed have the right to regulate what is said in those forums. CBS doesn't like what Don Imus is saying, they have the right to fire him, as his employer. UW Law School doesn't like what Kaplan says in his classes, they have the right to fire him, as his employer. They want to protect their reputations, they want to make money (which means keeping corporate sponsors happy), they have the right to take actions to make that happen. Doesn't mean they should; doesn't mean they don't lose integrity for doing so.

We have the right to criticize CBS for its actions. But more importantly, we have the right to turn the channel, just like those that don't want to be offended. Or, like in the classroom situation where students have to listen to a professor and that professor's views, the student can a) walk out of the room, or, even better, b) CHALLENGE THOSE VIEWS PUBLICLY rather than keeping silent and complaining afterward. Not to go off on the Kaplan thing, but honestly, if the students involved had called him on it right there in class, couldn't he have explained what he meant RIGHT THERE rather than having to deal with a whole shitstorm of rumors and misunderstanding afterward?

My point: good on you, Ismael, for keeping shit real.

I just don't get or agree with your "right" to be offended argument or point. I'm not sure people think they have the right to be offended. Either you are or you aren't offended. In either scenario, people have a choice to act or not act. I think that people who were offended decided to organize and make Imus pay the ultimate price for his "free" speech; his job. People have the right to protest (freedom of speech) and his employer had the right to promote, suspend, fire or do nothing to him. They chose to suspend and then fire him. People get hired and fired all the time based on what they say and do. Dems is the rules and breaks when you work for someone else.

I'll turn your question/point on its head. Imus doesn't have a right to employment. He sure found that out. Imus was fired because he became a liability and was beginning to cost him employer money. Good! You are right that if everyone simply stopped listening to his program it would be cancelled. However, as I'm sure you know, the folks that were offended weren't listeners of his show in the first place. So I doubt that advising people to simply tune him out and he would go away would ever be effective. Hindsight proves that the approach that was taken was an effective approach.

As far as your belief that people are too sensitive, well that is your opinion, its your blog and you're entitled to say that. I think it is a bit arrogant to judge folks on whether they are too sensitive or not, arrogance that I think everyone is guilty of at different times. Standing in your shoes you may think that they are being too sensitive, but maybe you should respect the fact that folks wearing different shoes have different feelings and sensibilities than yours. You only know what you are passionate about and what may make you upset. Other folks may dismiss your passion and feelings. To say that you are too sensitive because I don't agree with you or share your feelings is, for lack of a better word, wrong. I'm always skeptical when someone says that others are "too" anything because it inevitably means that someone is imposing their values on others. I know I'm guilty of it as well, but it sure doesn't make it right.

Wow. NT Is All In does the work here.

I've addressed this before: I don't agree with your right-to-offend take on the First Amendment. And I don't think the courts do either.

What has happened here is a perfect illustration of the Marketplace of Ideas the 1st Amendment is meant to foster. Imus exercised his right to run his mouth. The public largely rejected his idea, calling for everyone from sponsors to CBS to ditch Imus. And that's exactly what they did.

I agree with you that it's unfortunate he was fired. I think it showed a lack of loyalty (and a backbone). But, them's the breaks. The market wasn't buying what he was selling.

On the contrary, Ismael, I completely agree with you - the right to offend is absolute, and we should be able to exercise it freely.

My poorly-articulated point, however, was that I think this becomes an issue in the first place because of the whole idea that people are afraid of offending "mainstream" middle America. Like it's okay for Janet Jackson to show her nipples, just not on a nationally-televised (read: free) broadcast. Or it's okay for Bill Maher to say what he wants about the 9/11 hijackers, just not on ABC.

I'm not saying that I agree with this, or that I think this is right (honestly, I think this sort of attitude spreads more intolerance rather than the tolerance and understanding that it purports to promote). I'm just saying that this is why I think the network brass does what it does - because they're all a bunch of cowards.

NT,
I deleted your double post and your comment about the double post, I hope you don't mind.

I'm not arguing that people have a right to be offended. It's my position that people have a right to offend and that there is no right to not be offended. In the context of Mr. Imus's statements, my point was that he had the right to say what he said (obviously he has that legal right, obviously it was stupid to exercise that right, obviously people have the right to protest, and obviously his employer has the right to fire him). In the context of the protests in responst to Mr. Imus's statements, my point was that those people were taking an approach which suggests that they take themselves to have a right to not be exposed to material that they consider offensive. This is why, I believe, they repeatedly called for CBS to fire Mr. Imus. This same attitude came into play during the whole scandal with the images of the Muslim Prophet. People were attempting to silence someone else's speech on the basis of their own offense barometers. Nothing illegal happened in Mr. Imus's case, but it's been my contention that it is stupid (read: morally objectionable) to silence someone else's speech merely because you disagree with it or find it offensive. That's the impetus for the title of the post: you're not standing on firm moral ground when you assert your right not to be offended, in my opinion.

I agree completely that Mr. Imus doesn't have a right to employment (unless he had a contract, which apparently isn't an issue). But, as I tried to make clear before, my objection isn't that someone's rights have been violated. Rather, my objection is that everyone involved in this issue has acted stupidly: Mr. Imus shouldn't have said what he said, the offended people should have dismissed the comments as the ravings of a madman, and CBS shouldn't have caved to popular pressure (and neither should the advertisers, but that's a different matter).

As for people being too sensitive, it's hard for me to argue that my assertion isn't subjective. However, let me propose what I've always taken to be the fundamental principal of offensiveness: there cannot be true offense without actual intent. This ties into my other believe, well known to my friends--tRJ included--that context is essential in determining whether something is offensive.

The question, in my opinion, shouldn't be what someone said, but how, why, where, and to whom the thing was said. In one context, the phrase "nappy-headed hos" might be extremely offensive. In another context (such as, I hope, the use of the phrase in the previous sentence) the phrase might not be offensive at all. The question turns on who said it and why. We can talk, of course, about whether Mr. Imus intended his comments to be offensive, but the inquiry should begin there. (I recognize, of course, that there are situations where someone's comments will be patently offensive, yet they will not have the subjective intent to offend--a racist might make disparaging remarks about some group and take them to be mere recitations of fact, for example. In situations like that, however, the belief that the disparaging comments are true might be called "constructive intent." I haven't thought this through very well, so I reserve the right to revisit this point.)

In any event, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that, while Mr. Imus might be justly criticized for making a joke in poor taste, he was still trying to make a joke. I think that's a very important aspect to this conversation.

tRJ,
I'll be perfectly honest: I'm not well-versed in First Amendment doctrine. I take it, however, that you are allowed to say offensive things as long as they aren't slanderous or immediately threatening or something along those lines. In any event, I've tried to keep the Constitution out of this conversation because it's not applicable.

I agree completely with your comments about the Marketplace of Ideas: this is exactly what the First Amendment is supposed to allow to happen. My disappointment is aimed at the decisions the individual actors have made: Why choose to say something so stupid? Why choose to silence speech just because you don't like it? Why choose to fire a successful radio host just because a bunch of people were offended.

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree, basically on everything. I don't think that this issue should be framed as whether someone has a right NOT to be offended, or the right to offend, or the right to work, or the right to anything...the issue, as I see it, is that people have the right to do whatever the fuck they want to do, so long as they are willing to pay the consequence. You want to scream fire in a crowded room, know yourself out. You want to yell, "bomb, bomb, bomb" on an airplane, like Ben Stiller did in Meet the Parents, go right ahead. That is your right. Just be ready to pay the price.
I applaud the folks that acted to get Imus shit canned. Good for them. I think that there should be some social norms. I am not going to volunteer what they should be, but I think that attacking a group of unsuspecting African-American women with insults should be outside of our social norms. There should be a price to pay for acting as such. If you did it in a subway, maybe the price is to get your ass kicked. Do it over public radio or tv, maybe a fine, suspension or your job is the price. I'm ok with that. It happens all the time. It recently happened to an ex NBA basketball player who coached in the CBA who shared a ton of stereotypical views regarding Jewish folks. He didn't get his ass kicked or thrown in jail. He got shit canned. I think his getting shit canned goes towards shaping the social norms that I believe should exist. Maybe he won't say that crap in public again and maybe other folks that want to say that they have an awesome Jewish lawyer, cuz you know they all are, and are awesome business people etc., will think twice and just say that they are represented by excellent counsel.
As far as requiring intent in order to be offended, I disagree. That is crazy in my mind. I get offended all the time for stupid shit that people do or say. It happens cuz it does. Do I want to kick all of their asses or throw them in jail? No, but I'm still offended. In our legal system, there are crimes that one may committ and be guilty of without the mens rea, if my memory serves me right. Its been a while (9 years since my last crim law or crim pro class). I don't think you need the mens rea to be guilty of manslaughter, right? I think that you just have to be guilty of the act. Not that I frame my beliefs based on our legal system, but I thought I'd throw that in there in light of the fact that I assume most people contributing here are in law school or practice law.
In comedy, there are also lines that are crossed and consequences to be paid. I'm glad Kramer got booed off that stage and banned from the Comedy Store. He thought he was being funny, but he was just being offensive. I don't agree with the Comedy Store's subsequent ban on the term "nigger", because I think its use can be funny in the appropriate context, but that context surely wasn't the one Krame was using.
Anyway, good discuss. It brought me back to my law school days.