Ifill often irks me by coming off as a little too cool and a little too cynical on many issues. It was terrific to see her passion on this issue. I particularly liked her astonishment at Brooks' argument that he had been on Imus half a dozen times and apparently thought he was talking to Jim Lehrer.

The "freedom of speech" meme always seems to emerge from the wingnuts when one of their haters suffers the natural consequences of his or her nasty-ass, anti-social rantings. The first amendment protects us from prior restraint by law of speech and from imprisonment or other legal punishment for expressing ourselves. It most assuredly does NOT, either expressly nor by subsequent interpretation, guarantee everybody's right to say anything whenever they want without any consequences from employers, spouses, children, or other fellow citizens.

Try telling your boss she's a "nappy-headed ho" and see how well the first amendment protects your job.

Freedom of speech is merely an abstraction anyway. All societies have to make constant decisions on what forms of speech and expression to proscribe by law. We have numerous laws against personal expression unchallenged and unremarked upon in our statutes. Aside from the old "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example, laws against extortion, blackmail, defamation, libel, and slander limit our "freedom of speech."

But even these commonplace and common sense examples of legally restraining speech aren't necessary to dismiss the ideathat Imus' "freedom of speech" has been violated. He was never threatened with jail, and he broke no existing law with his loathesome comment. He got no more than what he deserved, and we're all better off for his absence from the airwaves.

Reed Hundt was chairman of the FCC according to his bio. Does anyone find that chilling given that quote?

You're not completely right, yet. You're right that Hundt was wrong. Imus' freedom to make this comment without fear of imprisonment was never in question, and it's not clear to me that he was subject to more "conditions" because he was on the radio instead of on a soapbox in Central Park.

However, one or more of the Rutgers women may yet sue him for defamation (as the wife of a Boston newspaper columnist did, successfully, some years ago, after he said she had had repeated sexual encounters with a black man)--I hope so. If he IS successfully sued, it will be apparent that he did NOT have the right to make this defamatory comment.

Why, do you? There are hundreds of laws and regs that govern freedom of speech. Probably not enough. Just for one example, despite numerous retstrictions on the claims advertisers can make for their products, I hear a constant stream of pitchmen exercising their freedom of speech to make bogus claims for their products, thereby victimizing less-than-vigilant consumers.

The issue is not whether freedom of speech should be conditional. The issue is what the conditions should be. Unrestrained speech is both undesirable and impossible.

I hope so. If he IS successfully sued, it will be apparent that he did NOT have the right to make this defamatory comment.

Not quite. It will prove that with rights come responsibilities and consequences.

I agree that there are limits on speech.

Hundt is clearly advocating the suppression of speech by the government that he finds offensive. We all may applaud now, but what if his tries to censor someone else for less laudable reasons. That’s why we allow the KKK to march through Jewish neighborhoods.

I don't agree. I think I have a first amendment right so say something defamatory, that is the government can't stop me from saying it. If someone can prove that I damaged them with my speech, they can get a judgment against me.

It might be better to say that Imus had a "right" to say what he did, but he didn't have an "unconditional privilege" to say it.  Thus, he may be liable for damages in a suit brought by a person who was harmed by his speech.

Well, if he harmed someone by telling a lie about them and is found to be liable for damages under the law, then clearly he did NOT have the right to say it. If I have the right to do something under the law, I sure as hell don't expect to be ordered by a court to pay damages for doing it.

IF one or more of the Rutgers women is courageous enough to sue him, and if a jury decides in her favor, then the clear message is that he did NOT have the right to make this comment.

It seems obvious but it is not.

A doctor doesn’t have a right to be a doctor so your example doesn’t work very well, but a doctor does indeed have the “right” to make a mistake and harm a patient as long as it was not intentional. The patient can of course get compensated for the harm done to him.

Likewise the government can’t stop me from saying something potentially defamatory. The party I defamed can recover damages if he can prove I damaged him, but that is an issue between he and I adjudicated in the courts system, completely separate from my constitutional rights.

I'm with Long Tom on this one, mainly based upon the old saw that, absent self-defense, a person's right to swing his fist stops where my nose begins. Imus has the right to verbally flail as much as he wants, but as soon as someone can prove in a court of law that he struck her (figurative) nose, clearly his right to flail ended there. Then it becomes a question of how much it will cost him for going beyond his rights.
Pantheon

Suppose Imus is successfully sued in civil court because of his statement. He still has a constitutional right to get a job at another station and say exactly the same thing.

The only thing to pity is the marketing slobs who fall all over themselves with fistfulls of dollars to promote people like Imus to have them fart on the air.

That they would think a fool like Rush, making light of a tragically ill celebrity, is worth putting one penny behind as a sponsor is most definitely worthy of pity.

I am very skeptical of government having the power to decide what is or is not a “malicious lie”. Somehow I suspect that Hundt would not consider “An Inconvenient Truth” a “malicious lie” if it was broadcast as news, whereas a Republican FCC chairman probably would. We really don’t need partisans with police power deciding such things.

The FCC regulates broadcast content. So, yes, it could well be that there is a regulation that does not permit this content over the publicly owned broadcast spectrum. On the web, or on cable, no problem.

They fined Janet Jackson. She had no right, even inadvertently (or not) to bare a breast. They could have fined Bono, but decided that one "fuck" was okay.

It helps to be a white male.

It always amazed me that respected journalists, senators and congressmen would appear on Imus in the Morning. They all liked to refer to him as the I-man. They had to know his long record of racist remarks. Could it be that all of us have become desensitized to the nastiness that permeates are airwaves?

Yes, indeed.

Imus, Stern, Coulter, Beck give people a freak show they love.

It won't be long before they kick old ladies down the stairs and push the handicapped under the train -- because it's just so much fun.

I think we should take one hard look at how ugly our culture has become.

No, certainly not. There is only a limited number of licenses that can be granted to broadcast on the radio spectrum. Because no everyone can have the right to broadcast, everyone who receives the right to broadcast does so in a limited way, because of their use of a congestible public resource.

Indeed, I would find it a bit unsettling if he had been unaware that an individual being broadcast has qualified freedom of speech ... and while Imus's show may have been on MSNBC, as he himself made clear just before CBS fired him, it was the syndication over CBS Radio that made him a very wealthy man.

Or, short answer: if a radio show on CBS is a constitutional right, where's my show?

If not, then look for a lot more test pattern than programming.

It's a little late for that, ain't it? Isn't that what we've got now?

Oh, but those are Right Wing Partisans With Police Power?

In which case, move right along, nothing to see here. Gotcha.

Uh... no one has a constitutional right to a job at a radio station.

That's just cracked.

Look, you're confused about what a "right" is, and you're not defining it for yourself in any common sense way. If the law, civil or criminal, punishes you for doing something, how can you say you have a "right" to do it? You can claim the right, you can even do the action, repeatedly, but if the law punishes you, you just don't "have the right." If you had the "right" you wouldn't experience any legal consequence. Snap out of it, man!

Anus has the right to get another job. It remains to be seen if he has the right to say, again, what he said the first time. I suspect the Rutgers women might not vote to accept a second apology, and I suspect a jury might be very sympathetic to a lawsuit.

How about if he called the Knicks "chest-thumping pimps?" (He did)

The airwaves are a public resource and legal tradition has long held that the First Amendment doesn't strictly hold for broadcast content, over the radio or TV channels, as much as it does for print media (and online media). Reed is commenting on the legal tradition and not breaking any new ground here.

The government most assuredly is not stopping him. The courts simply provide a means for those he harms to recover damages.

Three things, in descending order of importance. First, it's not that the First Amendment doesn't apply; it's that those who use the public's airwaves have a conditional right to free speech -- they cannot for instance engage in indecent remarks. This is the Supreme Court's view, and the law's. Second, it's not that Imus had to be fired; it's that the license holder had a responsibility to have its employees engage in decent speech, not indecent. Third, it's Hundt, not Hunt.

I would put it this way: he didn't have a right, but had a conditional privilege to speak over the airwaves. And what's probably more important is that he had, in my view, a right to communicate in the way I am now communicating: on the Web.

There is not a large enough market for them.

Are you saying commercial speech should be held to a higher standard of veracity than political speech? Or that political discourse is so unimportant that there is no responsibility on the part of anybody to try to make sure people aren't misled by the crassest lies, slander, and deception?

Bush was sold to the American people as cynically, crassly, and about as truthfully as penis enlargers. Let's not pretend that politcal ads are any different from ads for deodorant. They are there to sell a product.

When Rove decides, like Goebbels did, to set up loudspeakers on every streetcorner to spew his filth all day long, I suppose you'll object to any suggestion that he turn them off. That would inhibit his freedom of speech!

For me, the Imus saga has a reassuring side. I don't see that it ever reached a freedom of speech issue and doesn't really warrant a freedom of speech debate.

The reassuring side is that the things you do in life still have consequences. That simple concept, transending the law, guides behavior in most people. Sometimes we forget or begin to think our actions are immune. That most always initiates a remedial course of instruction. Ignored, the next course becomes more painful.

Don Imus made comments that were offensive. The group he offended was much larger than a group of Rutgers basketball players. The severity of the consequence was a result of lessons unlearned.

I was similarly impressed with Ifill. She is a beautiful woman, in all senses. It's been a week that my eyes were opened, and I thought they already were. Nope. They weren't

I watched Imus in the morning, I'll admit, mainly because the cable news plastic people and news bunnies turn me off. Corporate vanilla journalism has won out in all of this. Profit uninterrupted by controversy. Blandness and the the pursuit of news-as-entertainment, such as the wall-to-wall Anna Nichole Smith story, is going to be all we'll get. Imus, for all of his obvious flaws, was at least an antidote to that. I would rather he had not been fired by the cowardly bastions of corporate news. I would love to have seen Dave Chapelle come on as a co-host, too. Imus showed his mean streak one time too many, and it was just enough. But he wasn't all bad, either.

I've been listening carefully to all sides in this, and come away with the feeling that all of the manufactured hysteria from many quarters, including on this site, will drive us too far to the opposite extreme.

There are those who's priggishness and prudishness and desire to be able to tell us all what to do, think and feel are emboldened now. As far as I can tell, there are just as many of these on th Left as on the Right. The tone and words are different, but the impulse to control others is the same. If we let these voices take over the debate, all that will happen is that we'll need another Imus one day to blow them all to hell.

In a perfect world, we would not need protectiion from hypocrites and liars, and everyone would treat others as he or she would like to be treated. Legislating interpersonal behavior is not only a totalitarian wet dream, it's fundamentally idiotic and impractical. The best that can come of all this Imus stuff is that some fundamentally decent and thoughtful people have had a chance to show us what it means to be on the receiving end of slurs, but also to model a gracious and dignified and modest way of responding, as Gwenn Ifill did yesterday.

If only we could all be like that, we wouldn't need satirists to mock the comfortable and challenge the lies.

Let's be historically accurate when talking about something as important as free speech.

This is a constitutional guarantee against prior restraint of speech, primarily prior restraint by government power of speech that government doesn't like.

You or I can stand up on a soapbox in the public square -- or on the internets, that collection of tubes-- and say any damned fool thing we want. The government isn't supposed censor or squelch that speech, but there's nothing stopping the audience from pelting us with rotten fruit, either.

Ideas have to be tested in the great cauldron of public opinion. Imus found out, we all found out, that things like this just aren't funny any more, if they ever were.

Good ideas rise, bad ideas sink. It's a rough game. But the only way it can work is if there is no prior restraint by government using it's superior resources against new or unpopular ideas

But the freedom to speak one's mind comes with a concurrent freedom of the audience to give you the boot if it wants to, as it did with Imus, or to simply turn away in disgust, as it has from Bush.

What does "nappy" mean?

You're in a dream world. First of all, the law books are full of statutes "legislating interpersonal behavior." That's mostly what the law is and seeks to do: control interpersonal behavior, going back to the Ten Commandments and the Hammurabic Code ("Thou shalt not kill; thou shall not steal; thou shall not bear false witness" What's more interpersonal than killing, stealing, or, as in Imus' case, bearing false witness?)

"The tone and words are different, but the impulse to control others is the same."

Again, the whole purpose of the law, from its inception thousands of years ago, is to control people, to inhibit people from harming each other, and to create a mechanism for administration of justice and redress of grievances that prevents the chaotic exacting of personal vengeance. If you don't think so, tell me what you think the purpose of the law is.

The question isn't whether to try to control people, the question is what your side wants to make them do, or prevent them from doing. The right wants, among other things, to keep people of the same sex from marrying, and to prevent women from having abortions; the left wants, among other things, to keep the police from prying into the lives of citizens and to keep people from polluting our air and and water.

Your handwringing about "totalitarian wet dream" is ridiculous. Do you really think the Nazis are taking over because Imus's advertisers don't want to be identified with his crassness any more? Snap out of it!

I give up. You're just being intentionally obtuse. The government, through its courts, punished him for saying what he said about Howie Carr's wife. A government-paid judge issued the judgment. A government official would, if Imus refused to pay the judgment, come to his door and begin the procedure for seizure of his assets.

It's obvious that this means he does NOT have the right to say what he did. Why not define what a "right" is for yourself.

I do fully agree with your explanation of decency on the public airwaves Reed.  When discussing first amendment issues some people mistakenly think all "protected speech" is allowed on the public airwaves and it isn't.  Obscenity does not have full first amendment protection and the determination of what is obscene and what isn't is left up to community standards.  Even if speech is deemed not to be obscene it doesn't mean it is appropriate for the public airwaves.  And, on top of it using the community standards test, there is no definitive way to label speech obscene or not.  I think the same problem exists with decency standards and the public airwaves.  The determination of what is "decent" and what is "indecent" is a subjective decision.  And while it might not apply specifically to this case I am very troubled that, as a general rule, that arbitrary decision is being made by political appointees in DC who sometimes have partisan political agendas...

I actually do have a problem with the government regulating any fully protected speech, public airwaves or not, but the SCOTUS ruled on it...so it is what it is. 

Exactly!

You just summarized what the long debate above was about. Even if he is sued and has to pay damages he still had the right to say what he said, he could go out the next day and say the same thing without being put in jail. He would then likely be sued again and lose again, but wouldn't be prevented from speaking.

Actually, I'm sure they enjoyed the nastiness. Theres always a segment of humankind like that, they won't say it themselves but they ENJOY it when someone else is cruel and abusive. I'm sure they were hugging themselves in their enjoyment.

If you watched the show, she answered that question. She said that when Imus attacked her as "the cleaning lady" she looked at it as, "its not a big deal" and that she was doing fine in her life. But when this one came up, she thought about her goddaughter, Asia, and she wanted to say something and maybe do somehting to stop this cruelty towards black girls - especially at that vulnerable time in their lives, when they are becoming adults and reaching for something.

On April 16, 2007 - 2:28pm Karen444 said:

How irresponsible for these big corporations to not only sponsor him but contribute to his charity ranch? Who in their right mind would give authority over vulnerable sick children to people like Don Imus? Its another Michael Jackson thing.

What has Imus and his ranch to do with Michael Jackson?

Whiterose, thanks. I suspected as much but I wanted confirmation.

It was the simulcast that did Imus in. If he'd only been on the radio, it would have greatly limited the number of people who came across his show (to a sub-set of older white men) but being on TV,

Possibly. I really think it was because he derided athletes at a major sporting event. Consequently, his remarks were picked up and replayed on national/local sports RADIO talk shows, which is how I heard it on the way to the grocery store as that is primarily what my spouse has on in the car. I was shocked!  I couldn't believe the topic, nor the comment and was totally engrossed in the who what when where and how of such a remark,, on a show I would seldom listen to ..usually I tune out the sports talk.

Sports talk radio fanned this into a real issue by creating 2-3 hours of dialogue and call in talkers on the Imus's remarks. Sports fans were outraged. So the simulcast really did not take this mainstream, and that is why it was not immediately picked up by the media. I heard it on a Fri  (Good Friday) broadcast after Imus' remarks were made on a Weds?

On Friday, advertisers including Procter & Gamble Co. started talking about pulling their advertising from MSNBC's daytime schedule, which included Imus…P&G, the nation's largest advertiser, and one of its most conservative, says it quietly pulled ads from the TV broadcast on Friday but it didn't announce it until Tuesday when reporters started calling. P&G pulled ads from MSNBC's daytime schedule.

Unbeknownst to many who are whinning about Sharpton and Jackson fueling this. According to the timeline in WSJ the advertisers (GM/PG)had  quietly notified MSNBC and CBS that they were going to yank their ads that Friday which is how the 2 week suspension came about so quickly subsequent to Imus being on Sharptons MONDAY show. It was the sponsors actions prior to  Imus even going on Sharpton's show to apologize that was most likely the driving impetus for Imus to even go on Sharpton's show and apologize. The apology failed to quell the brewing firstorm, though.

The media failed to report on that timeline, perhaps so that white males could bash Sharpton/Jackson as race baiters and boost ratings by entertaining that idea?

Sharpton and Jackson merely took it to the wider grass roots community but they were not the leaders on this issue. The sponsors and Sports radio talk shows were.

"I started to wonder where all the outrage was when Imus insulted Catholics, Jews, Polish, Irish."

The reason for the outrage is the obvious quality and relative innocence of the victims, not their race. Imus has called the New York Knicks "chest-thumping pimps" and nobody cared. Has he ever called a specific group of young Irish girls "potato-eating whores?"
Or the Yeshiva University women's basketball team "dick-nosed sheeny sluts?"
Or the cheerleaders at Kosciuszko High "pierogi-fucking tramps?"

If he had, my guess is he'd have been fired even faster, and you wouldn't have written a letter like the one you just wrote.

Can you give an example of how he's insulted Catholics, etc., that you think deserves as much "outrage?"

One other thing: All of this seems fine when it happens to Imus for saying something truly stupid. But this kind of thing really just empowers jerks like Brent Bozell to go after programming that I actually like.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

On April 16, 2007 - 3:42pm LongTom said:

Can you give an example of how he's insulted Catholics, etc., that you think deserves as much "outrage?"

I won't attempt to measure "outrage."

Bernard McGurk creates a Bishop's Miter out of an Express Services package, puts it on his head, and ridicules a Bishop, and Imus goes along with it. Some might think that's outrageous.

Since I'm no longer a practicing Catholic, it doesn't matter to me.

And by the way; as far as I can tell he didn't call Catholics;
"Pedophile Priest Loving Catholics", something that would fit right in with the examples you gave.

Um, what was wrong with the letter I just wrote?

. . . if he can't sell a group of college kids what good is he . . . .

Actually, he did a pretty good job of it, and the Rutgers women accepted his apology, here.

It was the "I Don't Love NY" crowd at 7800 Beverly Blvd in LaLaLand -- CBS Entertainment, that is -- he just couldn't sell.

I was raised Catholic so I can talk about it. (Thats how it works and everyone knows it; thats why black comics can use the "N" word.)

Anyway. I DO see an indictment of ALL Catholics in the pedophile priest issue. There was not nearly enough justice there. If some corporation had been moving executives who molested children around in order to hide them and intimidating and paying off victims, don't you hope the justice system would move in and open that corporation up, go through everything, put everyone on the stand under oath? Demand all of their records, close down their facilities and forensically examine all the mattresses and chairs and sofas.

It didn't happen with the Catholic church, even though according to their own internal survey, over 30% of Catholic bishops participated in moving "problem" priests around.

Why didn't it happen? Because the politicians were afraid of the Catholic voters who were ready to whine at the drop of a hat that the Catholic church was being picked on.

No responsible person would put a vulnerable child in the care of either of them. Even if they did nothing to harm the child, these are very obviously not adults to whom children should be handed over.

There are a lot of people who disagree with you regarding Imus and kids. As does the Hackensack Uiversity Medical Center who designed, stocked, and staffs the infirmary on the ranch.

The ranch began working with referrals from Hackensack University Medical Center in Hackensack, N.J., and now has branched out to include St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn., Doernbecher Children’s Hospital in Portland, Ore., Sacred Heart Hospital/Nemour’s Children’s Clinics in Pensacola, Fla., University of New Mexico Hospital in Albuquerque, N.M., Eastern Maine Medical Center in Bangor, Maine, and New York’s Columbia Hospital.

Yeah, they're totally bleeding money. Which is a bad thing for free speech because they're in an unregulated space. But, you're right -- financially, both companies are currently losers and they would continue losing money even after a merger.

When Stern went to Sirius (to get away from the FCC) Siriuswas experincing a speculative stock boom. Imus' timing is not as good.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I read a comment from Imus wife yesterday that there are no counselors on that ranch and that she and her husband do it all as far as working with the children. She said it in the spirit of patting herself on the back but it makes no sense. The standard fare and history of that radio show was demeaning people, ridiculing "fat" women, racist remarks, making fun of the lovely singer when she had cancer, calling the Palestinian people "animals," those disgusting remarks about the Williams sisters, etc. etc. Since when does a responsible person leave children with someone of bad character? Its nuts.

I've only caught bits and pieces of the Imus show over the years but enough to know that a major target of his was "fat" women and what he defined as fat was most women. That goes right for the jugular with women of all ages. (I remember an Erma Bombeck column about the most depressing thing she'd ever experienced was going to a Weight Watchers meeting for new members and at the end of the meeting a woman who looked about 80 raised her hand and asked the instructor, "So tell me again what it is I should eat.")

Its cruel on the surface and the intentions are even crueler: Keep them in their place. So, I'd agree with my sister-in-law that he should lose everything and especially a charity ranch for sick children. Those politicians and media elite aren't the only boneheads; who in their right mind would put sick children in this man's care?

Your handwringing about "totalitarian wet dream" is ridiculous. Do you really think the Nazis are taking over because Imus's advertisers don't want to be identified with his crassness any more? Snap out of it!

Thus spaketh the mind police. Imus got what he deserved, but what's next? Speech codes.

Spare me your condescension.  

Or, more to the point: bite me. How's that?

On April 17, 2007 - 7:10am LongTom said:

My examples were to show you that his remark was actually much worse than others he's made. Got it?

Send me the list of all the other comments he's made that you used for comparison. You do have it, don't you?

Typical -- a politically critical comments elicits a personal one. The quality of argument on PaDem's part thus becomes clear.

Following up: Some readers see Hundt's original post as calling for government action, it seems. I went back and read it again, and I don't see it. Hundt simply points out a legal reality: Imus had no _right_ to make the comments he did. Here, I see Hundt responding to comments that his "right to free speech" was violated by firing him.

Note the point: if Hundt had a _right_ to make his comments, then his rights could be violated as much by a private as a public actor. Rights are primarily maintained, in our system, against the state, but not only. The point is, rather, that this entire debate is not about rights.

In any event, firing him was not a government action, and it was not prior restraint either. In light of these facts, the hyperventilation about those issues in this thread seem misplaced. I hope and believe that if Hundt did call for government action directly, he'd get a far less respectful hearing -- here and elsewhere.

Yes, the FCC would be on far stronger ground Constitutionally if the intrinsically-limited access to airwaves was regulated via an equal time provision for programmed political speech (or equal acces, equal rates for paid political speech).

The broad constitutional right to speech means that a law for tossing an Imus in jail for using that kind of speech would face of very forbidding Constitutional hurdle.

However, if he says something that brings the broadcaster into disrepute, only the most naive would think there is a first amendment issue involved with him getting the sack, and if he says something that defames people who are not in the political arena, only the most naive would think there is a first amendment issue involved with a civil suit for defamation.

And, yes, most discussants on TPM Cafe are not that naive, but I have seen some really silly remarks elsewhere.

Based on Oprah's show, I think this is about to get bigger. Women are being galvanized into action, they are fed up, like your sisterinlaw. Also, even though I am not a member, I received this letter online today calling for further action:

April 11, 2007

Alpha Kappa Alpha's International President, Barbara A. McKinzie, today assailed Don Imus for his reprehensible characterization of the Rutgers Women's Basketball team and expanded her criticism to Bernard McGuirk, producer, whose callous remarks triggered the disrespectful exchange. She said she supports the sense of outrage that is enveloping the nation in the wake of these egregious remarks and believes he and McGuirk should, as a tandem, be fired.  However, consistent with the economic theme that drives her administration, she asserted that the public should flex its economic muscle if powerful results are to be achieved.

Against this admonition, McKinzie urged the 200,000 members of the Sorority to divest of all stock in NBC, CBS and their parent companies; and to urge their families to do the same.

She said this is part of a multi-pronged strategy to address the economic and spiritual dynamics of this episode. As president of the world's oldest and largest sorority for college-educated African-American women, McKinzie said Alpha Kappa Alpha is a major stakeholder in also protecting the image and self-actualization of black women.

In this vein, McKinzie noted that the language co-opted by McGuirk and Imus in their now-infamous exchange, was taken from the black rappers who have gotten rich and made white producers wealthy by defiling black women in their music, She said the offensive lyrics that invade the airwaves have created a climate where it is "acceptable" to defile black women.

"We must provide an atmosphere where our mothers, grandmothers, sisters, aunts and children will not be subjected to this degree of public disrespect.  This can be most effectively achieved when we take away the economic incentive that says it's all right to utter such racist and sexist remarks.  We must stand strong and stop buying these records whose hurtful lyrics degrade black women."

In her remarks, McKinzie recalled that the late C. Delores Tucker, a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, waged a valiant - but lonely -- campaign  -- to expose the damage that these lyrics inflicted on black women's psyches.

"She was vilified for her courageous stance," recalled McKinzie.  "However, it was the right position because as its core was a resolve to derail the economic engine that creates this climate."

McKinzie said that, ultimately, the policy at the stations should change because the behavior cannot be changed.

"We can fire a Don Imus or Bernard McGuirk but unless there is a change in policy, another tandem will surface who will be equally offensive."

McKinzie said this episode can result in a positive outcome if NBC, CBS and their owners craft a policy that will prevent any future shock jocks from coming on the air and assaulting the airwaves with their sexist and racist vitriol.  She said such a "sincere" outreach can open up a national dialogue that can address the gulf that divides our nation."

McKinzie said Alpha Kappa Alpha and its talented core of members would serve as resources for such a landmark effort.

Until such a movement is launched, McKinzie urged members to divest themselves of stock in CBS, which is owned by Westinghouse Electric Company and is part of the Nuclear Utilities Business Group of British Nuclear Funds; and to sell all stock in MSNBC, which is co-owned by NBC and Microsoft, which is part of General Electric.

Founded in 1908, Alpha Kappa Alpha is the oldest and largest sorority of its kind.  Because of its stature and nearly 100-year-record of service, AKA is hailed as "America's premiere Greek-lettered organization for Black women."  Its membership includes high-profile women from all walks of life and from all disciplines including astronaut and physician Dr. Mae Jemison, poet Maya Angelou, actress Phylicia Rashad, entertainer Gladys Knight, entrepreneur Suzanne de Passe, U.K. Member of Parliament Diane Abbott, performing artist Alicia Keys and a host of local, regional and national political leaders. 

Barbara A. McKinzie is International President of Alpha Kappa Alpha and will serve through 2010.  Because her term coincides with the Sorority's Centennial in 2008, she is hailed as the Centennial National President and her term is characterized as the Centennial Administration. The theme of McKinzie's administration is ESP, Economics, Service and Partnerships.

I'm not so confident they'd lose, though I agree they'd offer at least an amicus brief if the stations fought an FCC ruling about Imus. But then, is "Imus in the Morning" really the hill that CBS would want to die on, or even fight on?

I think this is an instance where the speech was probably not egregious enough to warrant federal action, but the blatantly racist speech necessitated his removal from the public airwaves. Firing him was a nice, market-based solution, and prevented the FCC from having to use its regulatory power as a cudgel (which, realistically, we have to recognize as a possibility), or from pressure mounting on legislators to rewrite the regulations concerning public bradcast rights.

Well put, but doesn't that argument about Constitutionality rest on how Imus's speech fits in under categorization doctrine? Are we implicitly accepting that Imus's speech is unprotected? (Since the show frequently featured newsmakers and current events programming, would that open a defense for Imus? That's the only potential avenue of defense I can think of, since I doubt the remarks on their own would withstand scrutiny under R.A.V. v St. Paul--hard to say that the Rutgers women were capable of fighting back against Imus's speech on an equal footing, and letting Imus broadcast on public airwaves would seem to be an implicit act of advantaging his position over theirs.)

Sigh, I clearly need to actually go to law school, don't I?