??????? I am just appalled listening to conservative radio talk show hosts like Sean Hannity and Michael Medved (and I know there are plenty of others) showing sympathy for the plight of Don Imus in the wake of his firing and claiming his demise jeopardizes free speech. Admittedly folks like Hannity and Medved are in no way, shape, or form condoning what Imus said about the Rutgers women’s basketball team. But what they are saying is that the firing of Imus is wrong and will chill free speech. I could not disagree more.
Mr. Imus has the right to say, with some constitutional limitations, whatever he wants without government intervention. But he does not have a right to say it on broadcasts that CBS and MSNBC generate as a matter of private enterprise unless those employers want to allow it. CBS and MSNBC have every right to fire Mr. Imus if they find his performance offensive, which it certainly was. I happen to think CBS and MSNBC did exactly the right thing; racist comments and racial insensitivity should not be condoned and certainly it is good news if media outlets refuse to broadcast such remarks nationally. This is a matter of private enterprise. Mr. Imus does not have a constitutional right to his talk radio show, which he must sell in the free market. I am confident, unfortunately, that some other media outlet will pick up the show Mr. Imus wants to put out, if for no other reason than they will market the controversy such that they can make money off of it.
Free speech is at issue when the government attempts to restrict it. There is no such thing going on here. Constitutional rights are at risk only when there is government action, which Medved certainly knows (having attended Yale Law School for one year in the same class as Bill and Hillary Clinton), even if the concept evades Hannity. For folks like Hannity and Medved to imply that the Imus issue impacts constitutional rights is absurd and offensive in itself.
Perhaps more importantly, and certainly more germane to the purpose of this site, once again some high visibility conservatives appear to be coming down on the side of the person who has insulted and been insensitive to people of color. No, I do not condone the way in which Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton leverage these controversies for personal gain and to increase the rift between the races, and I realize they have some answering to do (which is unlikely to occur) for the Duke lacrosse players’ incident. But I do not think Sharpton and Jackson are at issue – increasingly citizens see them for the charlatans they are (and everyone must listen to the hilarious Justice Brothers spoof done on them during the Rush Limbaugh radio broadcasts). What is at issue is conservative support and sympathy for a person like Imus who has just insulted minorities. Condeming his words are not enough; no sympathy should be shown for his termination, and certainly it should not be implied that he has a constitutional right to keep his radio show and racist comments on air. This is just another sad example of why Republicans are losing so much support among voters of color.
April 13th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Good post. People can’t be arrested (for the most part) because it’s free speech. People can say what they want, it’s free speech. People can also get fired for what they say, that’s life, and free speech. Don’t say something that can alienate your employer from it’s clients. That’s business.
On another note, I saw Michelle Malkin fill in for O’Reilly last night, and the president of the New Black Panthers called her a whore on national tv. I’m still waiting for Sharpton or “the good reverend Jessie” to picket the Black Panthers. I guess I’ll be waiting for a while.
April 13th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
There’s this knee-jerk reaction of some conservatives against the media whenever they shout “RACISM”!
The media shouts “RACISM” so often with no support that some conservatives automatically assume the charge is overblown or use it as an opportunity to name liberals that have been racists and haven’t gotten called on it.
I’m glad Imus is gone because his show was filthy. I wish that CBS would follow it up being firing the filthy people on CBS music radio stations that say worse things every day. If they’re serious about ending denigration of black women on TV they should focus on reforming BET.
April 13th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Imus has been spewing racist and anti-semitic driven for years, what took them so long? Now it’s time for the left wing to be consistent and have the music companies fire all the racist and misogynist rappers from their labels.
April 13th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
I do find it amusing, however, that some on the left are trying to label Imus as a republican, or conservative.
April 13th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
I don’t have a problem with CBS or MSNBC firing Imus. In fact, I’m glad they did.
What I do have a problem with is the fact that the FCC seems to want to get a piece of the action.
April 13th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
I am heartened by the conservatives on this site who join me in cheering the demise of Don Imus! With your leadership we can reach out to voters of color and make the Republican Party a true majority enterprise.
April 13th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Although I do applaud it, I am rather weary of the road that this could lead down. Imus excluded, where will it end. This has given some people a very powerful hand when it comes to playing the victim card. Where will it end?
April 13th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Tommy, with respect to #7, the Imus firing is a matter of the free market working, there is nothing to be weary of unless you find Adam Smith tiresome (which I know is not the case). If there unfortunately becomes a market for mean-spirited, racist talk show hosts, the Imus show will get picked up. The free market does and should end with supply and demand, buyers and sellers.
This is not a matter of censorship. There is no government action involved with Imus.
April 13th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
It seems I’m in the minority here, which I find somewhat odd since, because of my race, I ought to be deeply offended by Imus’s comments. And I am. Don’t get me wrong. I think they were hateful and mean-spirited, and ought not be uttered by mainstream radio personalities. And I don’t think his firing, in any serious way, imperils constitutional free speech. CBS certainly has the right to fire their employees for any reasons they deem fit. As Republisu noted, radio programs are a free market enterprise, and if his type of commentary, for whatever reason, no longer seems to be in demand, then he certainly has no right to his job. But frankly, I think the entire incident is overblown. He made racially insensitive remarks. He apologized. He set out on a veritable pilgrimage to make amends with the basketball team. To be sure, much of this was likely career oriented necessity, but it really ought to count for something. And he was punished, initially, with a 2 weeks suspension. I think given the nature of Imus’s program, and in particular Imus’s style, the comments were beyond the pale, but not incredibly. That is, Imus is known for his non-politically correct demeanor. While I’ve never been a fan of his (he had some quite harsh things to say about Governor Roney the other week), it was one of his few admireable qualities. And it’s a quality that’s sadly lacking in political commentary. But the nature of that type of quality, is that you’ll occasionally say truly offensive things. And anyone who’d listened to Imus, or made the decision to hire him, really should have been aware of that possibility. In short, I entirely agree with CBS’s right to fire Imus, but I think it ultimately unneccessary.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
What I meant was, with people going after things they find offensive. But if everyone gets offended by everything, it will at least give the the good reverend jesse some exercise. With the good reverend jessie believing he’s done something that works, he’s going to be doing it a lot more.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Okay, let me ask the dumb question. Why is “nappy headed hos” considered to be racist? I understand that he obviously insulted the team, but was it a racial insult. If I said Al Sharpton is an ugly dumb son of ______, is that racist?
The hos part can’t be the insult, right? That term can and is applied to women of all races. Is “nappy headed” the racist part? Is that a term that is commonly applied to denigrate blacks? When I look at the dictionary definition for “nappy” it says kinky or frizzy. To me that could mean anyone that is kinky or frizzy headed, regardless of race. For this to be racist there must be some history of using “nappy headed” to insult blacks. Is that the case? I honestly have never heard that term used before so I don’t know.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Nappy-headed is a commonly applied to blacks, yes dblagent007. We do, as a rule, have “nappy-heads” (I’m not going to get kicked off the blog for that am I?).
April 13th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Afro= nappy headed. I think it comes from an insulting term used to describe slaves. I’m not sure.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Gotcha, long history of “nappy-headed” being used to refer to blacks. I wasn’t aware of that. Learn something new everyday.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
If my memory is clear, I think it was used in Huckleberry Finn, or Tom Sawyer. Twain had picked it up from hearing a slave refering to her son as a nappy headed boy. It was also used in the beginning of the movie ‘Boyz N the Hood.” When the young actor playing the Cuba Gooding Jr. character sees a girl he thinks is cute, her mother then tells her to “quit looking at those nappy-headed boys.”
April 13th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Imus should have been gone long before this incident.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Any company that would hire Mr. Imus ought to worry about thier approval ratings with the American public..
April 13th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Did the government force CBS or MSNBC to fire Imus? No. Not even liberals like Hillary or Pelosi dove into this story. The dud made a very stupid and offensive statement that went against the policies of two private companies. Leave it to right wing shock jocks like Hannity to take the side of a racist ideologically confused lefty like Imus. This makes them look equally pathetic.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
April 13th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Matt, with respect to #18, I honestly believe that folks like Hannity and Medved are taking very questionable stands in this regard because they are in a panic. Sharpton seems energized by his own belief that he facilitated the Imus firings, and may have his eyes on going after conservative radio talk show hosts next – and the latter are very worried about this and therefore erroneously arguing that their constitutional rights are at stake. Not true. Maybe their current lucrative jobs are at stake, which the free market will decide, but not their constitutional rights.
And, of course, this has created a knee-jerk reaction from some activists on the right, as former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay was on the Medved and Hugh Hewitt radio shows today calling for conservatives to pressure and boycott ABC so that Rosie O’Donnell gets fired from The View.
Why don’t conservatives let the free market work, as they talk about believing in? Just like with Imus, Rosie will eventually go too far, because she is uninformed and venomous, and sponsors will force ABC to jettison her. This need not be a political matter of which side can mobilize the most protesters and boycotts. And it certainly is not a constitutional crisis where free speech is at stake, as these conservative radio talk show hosts would have you believe.
More debate is good. And when those in the debate go too far and offend too many people then their private sector pulpits will be lost because of supply and demand and the invisible hand, and then they will have to speak from home or in an acceptable public forum, where they won’t get paid for the comments.
April 13th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Bravo Republius.
You are absolutely correct that this is a matter of private enterprise, and CBS and MSNBC have every right to hire and fire whom they wish in their pursuit of profits.
It is only an outrage when the government (say, for instance, a mayor) tries to use their position of power to shut down what they deem to be offensive speech (in the broad sense).
April 13th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Tano, let’s not forget that Imus is of the hard Left. Also don’t forget to include left-wing students who forcibly shut down lectures by right wing guests at universities which accept federal funds.
April 13th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
I’m not sure I’d consider Imus of the hard left. From the little I’ve seen of him, he seems to be a libertarian type conservative.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
JF,
Imus is the “hard left”?
I never got that sense. But then again, I never listened to him, so, who knows.
And yes, I support free speech. In fact, I promise you that I will not vote for any of those students for president, ok? (not the mayor either).
April 13th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Touche, Tano.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
I think a lot of us here may be missing the point of Sean Hannity et al. They all have said repeatedly that they are horrified by what Imus said. What they are questioning – and I agree with them – is the double standard seen here. Imus was justly fired for making remarks deemed racist on the public airwaves (although I’m wondering why the legitimate accusations of sexism have been so muted). No one is questioning that. But where is the outrage and calls for job termination when Rosie O’Donnell made anti-Asian jokes on The View, or when Mayor Nagin of New Orleans called his city a Chocolate City, or Senator Robert Byrd’s “white nigger” remarks a few years back? Not only do these people still have jobs, some were reelected or promoted! Where’s the outrage at CBS, who fired Imus for racist remarks but rakes in millions off rap artists saying even more racially and sexually degrading comments than Imus, directed at kids (kids don’t listen to Imus)? Where is the outrage at the hipocracy of the politicians and reporters who for years used Imus’s forum to self promote their new books and articles but now suddenly condemn his remarks and celebrate his firing? Imus didn’t just become this way overnight – he’s always been a shock jock who pushed the envelope too much, even after he moved more into the political realm. Where is the outrage at the hipocracy of the heads of CBS and NBC who claim they were so upset at his comments last week when they allowed those comments to go on for years and did nothing about it? Could it possibly be that this time it affected their financial statement, that maybe diminishing returns on Imus’s show is the real reason they fired him instead of genuine concern for the African American community, or am I being too cynical here? There also needs to be a recognition of the difference between a true racist and one who through stupidity or ignorance says something so outrageously wrong. Those who have listened to Imus in the past are aware of the charitable work he has been doing for decades on behalf of the sickest of children regardless of race or gender or any other factor, or the flack he took defending the African American community of New Orleans during Katrina. No one that I’ve heard is questioning Imus’s firing. They are just wondering why it doesn’t happen more often to others in the media. It just often seems that only certain political groups are considered “off-limits,” and only certain groups are forgiven for their hurtful words. In a better world all hate speech by everyone would be treated equally.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
One further comment: While I wholeheartedly agree with the free-market deciding who stays and who goes, I also agree with Ann Coulter (and, ironically, Rosie O’Donnell) who mention the slippery slope we are heading towards when speech police monitor what people say. I don’t condone racist comments of any kind, but I think we also need to be careful in how we react to WORDS.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Imus supported Nader in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and McCain this year. I think its safe to say that he is a libertarian-moderate-democrat-leaning maverick of some sorts.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Yeah I always saw him as a sort of radical moderate. As somewhat of a maverick himself (to put it mildly) heis support of Nader and McCain doesn’t really surprise me. Even his support for Kerry wasn’t all that shocking. I wouldn’t call him a leftist, however.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:22 am
Jake,
I am not a fan of any of these people, but there are differences in the examples you mention.
Rosie made an ethnic joke. That is not cool in my book, but it sure is different than calling specific young ladies whores, especially given the history of white men and black women.
Byrd’s comments were wierd, but he obviously was not using the term as a hateful denigration of someone.
“Chocolate City” has nothing to do with racism. It was a term of pride and endearment that blacks used to refer to cities where they had a majority, and thus a sense of security. I lived in DC for awhile and I heard it constantly from blacks to refer to their city. I think there even was a local music band that took the name.
I cant comment on the maliciousness of things that Imus may have said in the past, since I dont follow his work. Maybe he didnt do things quite so over the edge. Or maybe society is evolving and things like this are less and less acceptable.
In general I agree with you that all hate speech is bad. However, its seems a bit disingenuous to ignore 300 years of the worst type of oppression carried out by one race to another. I am somewhat of an older guy – segregation was still in place when I was a child. And when I heard a black person saying derogatory things about whites, it sounded very much like a voice of someone on the bottom railing against an oppressive force that they were powerless in the face of – their angry speech was about all they had. When I heard white folks say derogatory things about blacks, it seemed very much to be a continuation of the oppression.
Maybe you think that this dynamic is a thing of the past, but that would be the world from your perspective. Others still sense this dynamic at work. Even if the dynamic is fading, the cultural understanding of the dynamic will take time to work out of the consciousness of people.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:36 am
Tano. . .regarding the generational viewpoints you mention, I couldn’t agree more. But that’s where this becomes an even bigger problem. You refer to the 300 years of oppression as well as the segregation era not so many decades ago. No one could seriously claim that there is racial equality today and I wouldn’t even try to defend that idea. But at the same time we can’t have different levels of acceptable hate speech depending on the historical context from which the speech derives. As a society we’ll never move forward if any racially hateful (or sexist) speech is allowed. And within the African American community, what message are children, especially young girls, being given when they are told white hate speech against blacks is wrong and deplorable (and grounds for termination) but black hate speech against people in both races is not only ok but financially rewarding because after all they have been oppressed for so long? We as a society cannot permit and, worse, reward some people for saying certain hurtful words – about their own race or others – but condemn those of another race or group from using the same words. The “N-word” is horrendous no matter what color the source of the word is. Rosie’s Asian slur should be held to an equal standing as Imus – that is to say they are both completely unacceptable in this country in 2007. Generational differences and past racial intolerance may explain the current racial climate but it doesn’t justify it.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Of course right after I wrote #30 above the following happened: I work at a radio station overnight which is why I’ll be awake here tonight until 7am. A guy just called to say he’s not a racist (I love when they start off that way) and he’s glad Imus got fired but he wants to know why there are no white guys on the Philadelphia Eagles and thinks that there is too much “infiltration” of certain cultures into certain other cultures. So it appears we have a very long way to go.
April 14th, 2007 at 9:43 am
STFU you nappy headed nigger faggot ho!
April 14th, 2007 at 10:44 am
even CondomLisa Rice said Imus was wrong. When the hell is she going to be fired for incompetence?
April 14th, 2007 at 11:19 am
It seems like the election season is beginning to pick up spin, because the trolls are starting to appear.
April 14th, 2007 at 11:21 am
oops…. speed, not spin- although I guess it’s picking up spin too.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
jake, it looks like you have sipped the conservative radio talk show hosts’ Kool Aid. But you work at a radio station and have tempting access.
The slippery slope argument of Hannity, Medved, Coulter, et al is ridiculous. Slippery slope to where? There is no slippery slope here. There is no government action here. Government is not cracking down on free speech. The Supreme Court is not restricting the First Amendment further.
This is about private organizations setting their own standards, which they have every right to do. The First Amendment does not protect Hannity and Medved from having their shows cancelled.
You are dead wrong in asserting that these talk show hosts are wondering why more folks haven’t been fired for insulting remarks. It is exactly the opposite. That is not what they are worried about or saying. They are worried that any of their brethren get fired and they are implying that the firing of Imus was a mistake because it curtailed his right to free speech, however abhorrent.
Hannity, Medved, and Coulter want radio talk show hosts to be able to say whatever they want and not get fired, and they are erroneously invoking the First Amendment to make their claim. The First Amendment does not cover a private organization’s decision to hire or fire a radio talk show host.
If you are into sports, it is the same as talking to a head coach about another head coach who just got fired. They will always be supportive. Coaches do not want to see other coaches get fired because it makes them vulnerable to the same. Radio talk show hosts don’t want to see other radio talk show hosts get fired, and they are irresponsibly invoking the First Amendment and a slippery slope argument about civil liberties being impinged to cover for their own selfishness and lack of standards.
It is pretty simple for me. The racists – be it Don Imus, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or David Duke – should not be given private platforms, if at all possible. Same for the haters – Imus, again, and folks like Ann Coulter. I have very little respect for anyone who supports the above named people. Let them exercise their First Amendment rights on their own front steps without pay. ABC, CBS, CNBC, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and FOX should not be providing them a private pulpit and then paying for such vile remarks; and if they do, such media outlets should not be patronized by the rest of us.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
[...] Update 4: Race 4 2008’s Republius weighs in with Conservative Support And Sympathy For Imus Is Disgusting – There Is No Constitutional Right To Your …. [...]
April 14th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Republius. . .
Not everyone who disagrees with you sips kool-aid. You are missing the whole point of what Hannity and others have said. Every time they appear on TV they said very bluntly that they do not agree with Imus and in fact have condemned what he said. No one – I repeat NO ONE – has come to his defense of those remarks. The debate about whether his remarks were acceptable ended before it began. What is being debated here is not whether Imus’s speech is acceptable but why other racist and sexist comments pass by with no comment. Imus did not invent the word “ho.” It is used on a daily basis in every rap song to hit the charts. It is used on school playgrounds against young girls and on the very networks owned and operated by CBS and other media holding companies that these kids watch, by artists they idolize and copy.
Yes I work at a radio station (all music, not talk) but before that I worked 11 years in the TV business. As any journalist will tell you, free speech threats do not always come from the government. When a religious group shuts down a movie’s theater release through protests and financial intimidation, that’s a threat to free speech. When college students rush a stage to prevent a conservative speaker from addressing the crowd, especially when the college does nothing to prevent it, that’s a threat to free speech. Everyone agrees that CBS had the right to fire Imus, and I think it was a good decision. But the hipocracy of the African American leaders, the media corporate big wigs, the reporters and politicians who appeared on Imus’s show repeatedly – for them to all of a sudden see the light and say Imus is unacceptable is laughable if it wasn’t so sad. It was only when Imus became a financial burden that they “realized” just how bad he was.
Harvey Fierstein, the very proud gay actor, recently penned an op-ed in the New York Times where he questioned just such hipocracy. He wonders why the anti-PC crowd can be so choosy in which hate speech it will not tolerate. He cites the recent case where an actor from Gray’s Anatomy publically called a gay actor a “faggot,” and wonders where corporate America’s outrage was then. He questions why it was ok for Bill Maher to repeat Ann Coulter’s “faggot” remark four times on his show without an apology from the host or the network. Finally, he asks, when a Pentagon general paid by tax dollars labeled homosexual acts “immoral” and still kept his job, “who are the moral high and mighty kidding?”
Even Senator Obama finally came around and questioned the hipocracy of the whole thing at a speech in South Carolina Thursday. When asked to compare Imus to rap singers, Obama criticized Imus but then added that “all of us have become a little complicit in this kind of relaxed attitude toward some pretty offensive things, and I hope this prompts some self-reflection on the part of all of us.” He added that he worries about how the racist and sexist climate is affecting his own daughters’ sense of self esteem and discussed the struggle he as a parent faces in light of what seems to be acceptable hate speech by certain segments of society.
Imus is a small part of a much larger debate that is long overdue among people of all races. Within the African American community, where teen pregnancy is high and the high school dropout rate is pathetic, where unemployment and prison numbers are the highest in history and getting worse, and where a new generation of children are being raised in an increasingly permissive society, one must ask when Sharpton and Jackson will turn inward and become outraged at what’s happening within their own community.
This goes to the heart of what Hannity is saying.
April 14th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
jake, conservative talk show hosts like Hannity would have a lot more credibility with me had they come out immediately and called for the firing of Imus and immediately repudiated Ann Coulter for her John Edwards remarks, in addition to pointing out the hypocrisy of folks like Maher, Sharpton, and Jackson. Only if all of it is done does the person have any principles, as far as I am concerned.
And, sorry, free speech is not impacted when private enterprises are protested. There is no constitutional right to customers on the part of private enterprises. If the product is good enough, the consumers will far outweigh the protesters. If not…
What Hannity is calling for is a world where he can make a grievous error in what he chooses to say on-air and insulate himself from being fired by the First Amendment. That dog won’t hunt, as lifelong hunter Mitt Romney would say…
April 14th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Once again, Hannity never said Imus should keep his job under protection from the first amendment. I haven’t heard anyone anywhere say that, conservative or not. Hannity did question Coulter’s wisdom for choosing her words but also correctly questioned the hipocracy surrounding that story. Again, this goes beyond Imus, and Hannity has discussed this often. It has been proven time and again that conservatives who say the “wrong” thing (Trent Lott, for example) are justly condemned and rightly suffer the consequenses for their insensitive comments, while liberals and leaders within the African American community (Rosie O’Donnell and Jesse Jackson, for example) get a free pass from the media, and often are rewarded and promoted. What’s worse, as Hannity points out, is when those receiving the free pass become the ones doing the condemning. It’s the typical “do as I say, not as I do” attitude that permeates the left side of the political spectrum.