Imus firing not about "free speech"

The claim that the firing of Don Imus has something to do with "free speech" is making me crazy. Let's review what the First Amendment actually says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Note that it says "Congress shall make now law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." It doesn't say "Private corporations cannot fire people who say offensive things." The First Amendment is about government regulation of speech. Yet numerous commentators have stated that "free speech" is threatened by Imus's firing -- here's a sampling:

Los Angeles Times, 4/14/07

KABC's Doug McIntyre said, too, that free speech was imperiled if "a joke -- a lame, idiotic, stupid joke" could get Imus fired. If that's the case for others, he added, "we're doomed."

New York Post editorial, 4/13/07

CBS did the right thing yesterday in pulling the plug on Don Imus' radio show, following an outcry over racial remarks he made about the Rutgers women's basketball team.

The move came one day after MSNBC's decision to stop simulcasting Imus' program.

Yes, such drastic action raises legitimate free-speech concerns. Imus, after all, is being silenced for words, however repugnant, spoken on what is largely a comedy show. In general, wouldn't society be better off if people were less sensitive?

Still, Imus crossed the line.

Los Angeles Times op-ed by Dana Parsons, 4/12/07

Not that you asked my opinion, but I'm a free-speech guy and don't see the point of having it if someone gets fired for exercising it. I would heartily criticize Imus, but probably not fire him.

Washington Post op-ed by Michael Meyers, 4/11/07

Defending Don Imus's on-air racial idiocy is impossible -- but defending free speech, even in the form of sick humor, ought to be considered anew in the wake of a storm of protest from censorious activists who are demanding that Imus be fired.

There is an audience out there that is hungry for the ribald and the offensive. It is an audience that will not go away and cannot be boycotted. Does labeling those listeners and the shock jocks they adore and emulate as racial dunces or "un-American," and making the shock jocks unemployable (for daring to say what they think), advance the dialogue about racism or sexism? I don't think so. Ours is supposed to be a nation that prides itself on free speech -- let a thousand tongues wag, we say, and the truth will be uncovered. But the censors and activists who are so readily offended by idiocy on radio have discovered still another truth: that the First Amendment does not apply to radio shock jocks. And so they want the advertisers and networks to ban the I-Man and toss him off the air. They don't want to hear from Imus, and they don't want anybody else to hear him, either. If the censors and pressure groups succeed, what will become of our culture of free speech, especially with such gabbers as Al Sharpton curiously demanding action from the FCC?

...If we prize freedom, we should let the radio talkers talk. Let them be perfectly understood, and let the pressure groups answer when the talkers veer off reason with their inane hatreds. But we should not allow pressure groups to drive from radio people who say the darndest things and those whose views they don't like. I say that if you don't like what you're hearing, turn the dial. If you want to call in and talk back to the jockass, do so. But we can't talk back on the radio if the censorship crowd gets its way -- if the sound of morning drives is bland conformity with the peculiar and narrow tastes of those who don't want us to hear what they themselves don't like.

The writer is executive director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition and a former assistant national director of the NAACP.

Tucker, 4/12/07:

MICHAEL MEYERS: And I'm on MSNBC. And I want to be polite. But let me tell you, I think what the -- not only are the advertisers speaking, but I think the executives at MSNBC have engaged in a wanton surrender of the principles of free speech. This is an act of economic cowardice on their part. And I'm shocked that Imus' fans and his audience have not -- have not spoken up.

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees, 4/11/07

COOPER: John Fund, is this a free speech issue, the Don Imus situation?

FUND: In part, yes. I think Imus should have been reprimanded but I think having fired him, I think you're setting up a lot of people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to call for a lot of other people fired perhaps for less incendiary comments in the future.

You can argue that Imus's firing will have a chilling effect on public debate about race. But it has nothing to do with "free speech" as such.

Comments

[Evorgleb]

We've been talking about how Jackson and Sharpton have now been getting death threats over Imus on the Highbrid Nation website and it got me thinking. Sharpton and Jackson may need to stop tryin to speak on behalf on all black people. I'm starting to feel like that are very out of touch with the average black person. Especially Sharpton who I feel is a joke.

[Rob]

You're absolutely right that the First Amendment relates only to action by the federal government and, by incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment, action by state and local governments and their instrumentalities, such as public schools and public universities.

Having watched the talking heads speaking this weekend about the Imus firing, I'm bemused that some of the same people who thought the firing of Imus was just good old market forces at work were outraged when good old market forces were punishing the Dixie Chicks for what they'd said. I know that foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but is it too much to expect that our pundits would have a little splainin' to do when they do a 180?

[Navid Nakhaee]

Brendan, I believe that "Free Speech" as principle is different from "Free Speech" as (the codified right written in) law.

I do not believe that all these commentators and writers called into question the unconstitutionality of Imus' firing, but rather saying that amongst their circles- this type of speech is acceptable. Personally, I would even find this latter defense even more deplorable.

Yet if in fact you are right, and they are utilizing the rhetoric of constitutionality, then they are not only morally repugnant for defending Imus' language, but also cheap in their sophistic tactics.

I can't help but remind myself of Chomsky's defense of Faurisson. Except defending Faurisson was a defense of his LEGAL rights, rather it sounds that these individuals believe that "nappy-headed-hos" is not outside of the limits of our acceptable political discourse.

Just another interpretation.

(And may our thoughts be with the Virgina Tech Campus)

[Melinda Pillsbury-Foster]

Imus has always been foul and personally I never listen to him. This is not a 1st Amendment issue, it is an issue of who advertisers will choose to keep on the air. The 1st Amendment was never intended to provide a free pulpit; Imus was yammering on the dime that paid his salary and miscalculated so badly that his employers got nervous about their bottom line and decided to get a new yammer-boy. So what? This is not Peter Zenger we are talking about here; it is a vile little bottom feeder carefully chosen to appeal to the lowest commom denominator of humanity.

(In case you did not know it Peter Zenger is the reason we HAVE a 1st Amendment.)

The amount of energy being expended on Imus just goes to show how schlocky those in the mainstream media really are. But since so many, for instance, John Fund, are there to distract attention from real issues, that is not surprising.

[Lou Delgado]

Hi Brendan:

Yes, people have a tendncy to confuse FREE-speech and FEE-speech, like the kind afforded to shock jocks.

Best--
Lou