This is where the PC movement sometimes loses credibility. It doesn't always choose its analogies or examples carefully. Why fire Donald Trump because of statements he's made on his own time about Rosie O'Donnell? To my knowledge he made his statements during interviews after first being attacked by Rosie. Did he like Imus say anything about Rosie on his show? I don't see the connection between the Imus situation and Donald and Rosie's antics.

Do you say this because Rosie is a gay female?

I don't approve of what Trump said about Rosie O'Donnell and think the man tends to be full of himself, making stupid statements like "I'm a winner and she's a loser." How juvenile. His comments about women and weight also prove his mentality, but what went on between Rosie and Donald was no more than a public brawl between two public figures. If he didn't have a show on TV he could've said the same thing and gotten just as much attention, and then who would fire him? Again, unlike Imus, he didn't say these comments on his actual show.

If anything, Rosie crosses the line constantly on The View. Her picking a fight with Kelly Rippa, calling her homophobic because she reacted to Clay Aiken putting his hand over her mouth was asinine and rude on so many levels. It was even unfair to the Aiken. He hasn't "come out" and announced he's gay. He doesn't want to discuss it. Rosie's the shock jock for The View.

Her manners are atrocious; she's not civil herself, and people have complained not about who she is but about what comes out of her mouth. I think she does it for media attention, and if her feelings were really being hurt, she'd stop instigating nonsense. Picking fights is part of her public persona these days.

I'm not defending Donald Trump's mouth; he too is a media hog, but Rosie starts fights with other celebrities constantly. At one point every time I opened my browser to my ISP's page it featured a video of Rosie insulting someone else. If she's going to dish it out, then why waste energy defending her when someone comes along who's as nasty as she is?

I wouldn't get involved in celebrity squabbles that probably amount to publicity stunts. Ratings go up when celebrities fight, and who could take the Donald Trump/Rosie O'Donnell fight seriously. At one point they discussed meeting for a wrestling match. The fastest way for someone to lose the battle for civility would be to jump between two media hogs who both seem to enjoy brawling in public.

Firing Donald Trump because of a comment he made about Rosie would be like firing Howard Stern if he made a nasty comment about Dr. Laura in an interview because she'd first commented on his lifestyle on her show in an offensive way.

And then what do you do about all the late night comedians who also target Rosie O'Donnell. Rosie can take care of herself. She's living by the rule that there's no such thing as bad publicity.

"Love is liquid. Brew and be drunkards!" ~~Nordette And here's a link to the blog.

They need to tell us what they stand for as a network.The problem is they don't know what they stand for.

I think you're mistaken here.

They quite clearly did tell us what they stand for. They fired him when ad revenues were affected negatively. To me that speaks volumes.

Jim Heivilin

Two quick factual points:
1. Rev. Al Sharpton was asked about his Christian duty to forgive on the Today Show, if I remember correctly. He said that he had no problem forgiving, but that did not mean that someone was excused from the consequences of his or her actions. He noted that when a man stabbed him some years ago, he visited the man in prison and forgave him. However, that didn't mean that the man didn't deserve a prison term.

2. Sharpton has been lambasting gangsta hip-hop artists and the corporations that market them for years. So have others. He has promised to hold a town meeting on the subject in the near future.

BlogHer Contributing Editor|
Professor Kim|
Contributing Writer, Online Journalism Review

The more I hear bloggers go on about what is free speech, the more I think that those who've suggested bloggers take journalism ethics courses may be right. Increasingly "free speech" is the buzz phrase people shout when they want to excuse someone for verbal abuse.

It's almost like they'd argue that democracy is synonymous with anarchy or that they didn't have parents who taught them the rules of civil speech and discourse. Few seem to understand that "free speech" does not mean you'll face no consequences for what comes out of your mouth.

A study of libel and slander or perhaps being sued for libel or slander would quickly shut up bloggers who go on about "free speech."

It's a stretch to say that Imus' comments fall under humor or parody and satire, but even if one did, his freedom of speech rights have not been violated. Imus wasn't prosecuted for saying what he said in a court of law. Despite being fired, Imus still has the freedom to say whatever he wishes, just not on CBS' dime. Free speech is the freest when one's language isn't tied to a business deal.

I read the TheTimes piece you linked to and while I concede its a well-written piece, I wonder how you read it and arrived at the idea Imus "can cost you your free speech." Do you have some urge to insult people of ethnic groups and women that you can't control?

I don't know if it's that I'm getting old, but I look at the people crying for Imus and wonder if they were alive when white people regularly pressured sponsors to remove anything from airwaves and television screens that suggested black people were equal to white people. I was pretty young when southern white stations refused to run the Star Trek episode of the so-called interracial kiss between Ohura and Kirk, and that was a fiction piece. Pressuring media to fire people for what the society finds offensive or remove it from the air is nothing new. The only difference is this time it was used to pressure media to stand against misogynistic, racist language and to open the door for people to be taken more seriously who have been protesting such language for decades.

This nation's freedom of speech concepts can be traced primarily to having the freedom to protest government and powerful institutions, not to having the freedom to insult and demean women or minority groups. Was anyone paying attention in his/her American Government classes?

I found this Imus quote interesting in that article.

But in the middle of his stunning medley of sneer, apology and rationalization, Imus asked a pretty good question: "This phrase that I use, it originated in the black community. That didn't give me a right to use it, but that's where it originated. Who calls who that and why? We need to know that. I need to know that."

The writer says this is a good question. I say that if Imus couldn't answer it himself and mistakenly believes racist and misogynistic language originated in the black community, then he was an idiot to use the phrase himself for that reason alone the same way I'd be foolish to use French idioms if I didn't understand them within the context of French culture and history. Furthermore, that Imus quote tells me that Imus represents ignorance on the airwaves, and I wonder why so many people support such ignorance and choose it as their rallying cry for free speech.

The term "nappy head" did not originate within the black community. The word "ho" did not originate in the black community. "Ho" is a mispronunciation of the word "whore." The mispronunciation has been popularized by gangsta rap music, a very small segment of music coming from the black community. It happens to be popular now, but in the history of music contributions from African-Americans, it's an extremely small portion that's performed by what I call young men suffering from a testosterone overdose.

So, given that white slave owners were the people who started ostracizing African-Americans for having kinky hair and ridiculing the natural texture of most Africans hair by calling it "nappy," and referring to black children as pickaninnies and the like, no honorable and educated person would say that "nappy head" originated in the black community any more than they'd say that the word "n**g*r" originated in the black community.

Are we now going to debate where the word "whore" came from and its connotations to support Imus? As I said in my post, "The Imus Insults: Can America put it behind her?," Imus supporters should study American history:

Or would they have us believe that old white men learned to demean women from what's basically a group of young, poorly-educated black males who can spin a rhyme, many of them not that well? A good look at American history immediately disproves their argument.

These people who make statements like the Imus quote above are bigger hypocrites. They don't care about the degradation of women. And are they saying that because some black male musicians demean women that makes demeaning women okay?

Furthermore, as Kim suggests in her comment, people, including Al Sharpton, have consistently objected to and protested lyrics that demean women and other degrading language ill-used by so-called artists. I addressed this as well as ethnic insults within ethnic communities in "Imus, gangasta rappers, and knowing when to quit."

And as Kim said above, it's also possible that what Imus said about the women's basketball team amounted to slander. These girls, while in the public eye, are not public figures in the true sense.

As someone who earns a living through speech, Imus should've known this day was coming because the literate should have heard somewhere that "to whom much is given, much is expected." People with talk shows that influence the masses should be careful about what they say, especially when what they say perpetuates and empowers hate speech.

We may put the Imus nastiness behind us, but I hope we never forget the lesson learned from it. It's time to be kinder to one another and to stop promoting the idea that doing harm is mitigated simply by the words "I'm sorry." (link)

The Imus firing is not a blow to free speech; it's the first sign that America may be waking up from its stupor of racist/misogynistic drunkenness in a long time.

As for Jesse Jackson and "hymie town," he was severely sanctioned by media and the public for that statement. Could he be fired? No, Jackson worked for his own organization. Mel Gibson lost work for his comments, and Isaiah Washington was also called out repeatedly for what he said. The thing about these comments you mention is that none of them were made over the airwaves on the person's television or radio show. Nevertheless, while they were exercising free speech, the speakers still paid consequences via public outcry and condemnation.

If the public were successful in going after these people's jobs the way people called for Imus' head, then that would indeed be a blow to free speech. Are you suggesting that if I overhear you on your cellphone demeaning someone that I should take action to have you fired?

"Love is liquid. Brew and be drunkards!" ~~Nordette And here's a link to the blog.

Hi Dana,

When I hear "free speech" invoked, I do think in terms of press law. That's why I disagree with your framing of this as a free speech issue. I am curious about a few things:

1. To the extent that Imus' comments disparaged the characters of people whose status as public figures is questionable, do you think that he exposed himself and the networks to potential slander lawsuits? If you think that's a possibility, it's not about his free speech.

2. I assume that you recognize that there is a reason that Chappelle, Maher, Stern, et. al. are on satellite or cable. Thay can't do the same things on network TV and radio because of FCC rules. And under those rules, people who believe that what has been said or done on network violates decency standards can file complaints with the FCC, or challenges to broadcast licenses. It's the reason that even the vilest hip-hop "artists" have to make "clean" versions of their songs for radio.

Cable and satellite, as you know, don't operate in the same way because people voluntarily subscribe to those networks. No one is stopping Imus from going on satellite radio, or Comedy Central, for that matter.

Personally, I think Stern shouldn't be on network. I don't have premium cable, so I don't know what Bill Maher says, and even Dave Chappelle came to realize he was done a minstrel act and needed to change direction. That's what made him run off to South Africa. If I had my way, I would have opened a big ol' can of whoopass on the staff of Chappelle show, BET, MTV and a lot of other forms of popular entertainment. But I'm not, and it's up to people who object to that kind of filth to make it unprofitable. That is something that many of the visible protesters in this episode have been trying to do for years. The only difference in this episode is that the rest of the country paid attention.

3. The jury is still out on Rosie. It took decades before Imus crossed the ultimate line. I think that if people find Rosie violates decency standards, they should complain about it. That's what the system is for. The National Association of Black Journalists, the group that started the calls for Imus' firing, got involved in this one because Imus' show had elements of journalism in it, and because journalists and politicians were frequent guests. Most of the others you cite don't fall into that category, so they wouldn't come under NABJ's scrutiny.

4. The elephants in the room that we are not discussing are white supremacy and patriarchy, which played a role in why Imus' attempt at humor took the form that it did, and why people such as "Snoop Dogg" (to me he's still Calvin Broaddus) distinguished himself from Imus in the way that he did.

Broaddus invoked the Victorian madonna/whore paradigm when he said that gangster rappers aren't talking about women who work hard and educate themselves -- they just denigrate women who are golddiggers with low morals. Where did he learn that from? There's a larger culture out there there that teaches men and women to think that way.

And when Imus coupled the sexual epithet with a racial reference, he invoked the entire racial and sexual mythology surrounding black women, going back to Saartje Bartmann. As scholars such as Patricia Hill Collins note, this kind of essentializing doesn't juat imprison black women. It creates a race/gender hierarchy that traps everyone into a drama that reinforces oppressive boundaries.

What we invoke as humor and entertainment is very telling. Presumably none of us wants to see these ways of essentializing other women -- or men, for that matter -- continue. I think the challenge for us at Blogher is to talk about how we create new conversations.

BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|Contributing Writer, Online Journalism Review

You majored in journalism. Okay. The Imus situation is still not a free speech issue.

If it were a true free speech issue, then we wouldn't be discussing why Imus was fired; we'd be discussing why Imus is being prosecuted in court by the government. Imus is still free to say whatever he wants to say and insult whomever he pleases just not anywhere he wants. He's lost a job, not his right to speak freely.

I have the right to say whatever I please, but I don't have the right to say it on public airwaves, especially on public airwaves to which someone other than me owns the license. People who honestly believe Imus' free speech was violated should be starting a legal defense fund for him to tell CBS "see ya' in court." You want to do that? Have fun.

I was careful to say bloggers in the beginning of my other comment and not you specifically when I spoke of bloggers comments about free speech. My thoughts went all the way back to similar debates over the Kathy Sierra train wreck and the bloggers squabbling over free speech then. So, it's not all about you and your journalism degree. I think many bloggers don't understand free speech laws.

Judging by what I read in some newspapers today, I suspect many trained journalists could use refresher courses as well.

As for who is racist and who is not, I believe many adults of all races don't examine themselves enough to consider how some of their own thinking may be racist in some areas. I believe good adults can find themselves trapped in racist thinking even when they try their best to eliminate such thinking from their minds. The more subtle their racist thinking, the harder it is to identify. Usually such thinking can be traced to ignorance, a lack of knowledge or education in a certain area or subject, and sometimes to cultural indoctrination that's difficult to overcome.

Sometimes people of European descent go ballistic if anyone evens hints that they're racist. Why is that, and is that my problem? If we go with your argument that what I said meant anyone who supports Imus is racist, then you'd have to say that I also mean that anyone who supports Imus is misogynistic because throughout my blogs on this I point out that his comment was both racist and misogynistic. Perhaps I should revisit my blogs and make sure I always use both words together; otherwise, it's clear to me that some people will focus only on race and forget that we're also talking about misogyny.

You can scream about the gangsta rappers all you want. Many black people in general and black women in particular have been screaming about the rappers for years. Now because Imus has been fired some white people want to discuss racism and misogyny in gangsta rap. Puhleeese! I say, "Don't come to me whining about gangsta rappers to make a point about Imus." It reminds me of the "good ol' boys" in Slidell who suddenly wanted to discuss black children being victims of violence rather than address that their sheriff had just insulted all black people from New Orleans. Where was their concern for black children before the sheriff said what he said?

It reminds me of my ex. If you pointed out a problem that he didn't want to address like he bounced a check, then he'd say "Well, you didn't wash the dishes." Deflection will be the death of us, and that's all some people are doing when they bring in gangsta rap; they're deflecting. Perhaps you specifically aren't doing that because you seem to sincerely believe this is a free speech issue, but I've read a lot of pieces supporting Imus that focus on gangsta rap and it's clear that they're using deflection. Some people who've never paid attention to gangsta rap are now surfing the Net looking for lyrics to make their point.

Why go to gangsta rap? Is it because the rappers are black? The group Guns 'n Roses had the same problems, but no one could stop them either. Musicians and Imus don't practice in the same medium. Imus can cut a record and say "nappy-headed ho" all he wants to. It's unfortunate, but it's true. You can vote against that by not buying the record and making him rich.

So back to this issue of free speech, there's no double standard here. Imus and the gangsta rappers, while both insulting, are not in the same neck of the media woods. Also, gangsta rappers are not usually talking about a specific group of women that are unlikely to be called public figures. They make generalizations about all women which sadly could possibly be viewed as a political statement, an argument that keeps protecting the KKK, but gangsta rappers generally hide behind freedom of speech concepts tied to artistry. Imus got very specific and slandered a certain group of women.

Slander is illegal by the way. It's an illegal form of speech, and Imus does not pretend that he was talking about anyone other than the Rutgers women's basketball team.

Nevertheless, some activists have talked about boycotting radio station sponsors over gangsta rap, and that's another way to share one's opinion and exercise free speech. Where do you suggest they start? How do we encourage civility without ever supporting consequences for incivility?

The situation with gangsta rappers is far more complicated than the Imus situation. Furthermore, why some young black men are calling each other "n****r" and women "b****s" and "hos" and why a white man should not join them, especially over public airwaves, is not less complicated than French idioms but more. I wasn't talking about the meaning of one word like "ho" since an idiom is rarely one word. I was talking about origins, use, and connotations of the phrase "nappy-headed hos" when used in the black community. Imus doesn't understand it anymore than a non French speaker understands French idioms, and he admits he doesn't understand. The one thing he did understand was that it's insulting usually, so why did he say it?

And this is where I get off the train. I don't have the energy to explain why gangsta rappers do what they do nor why an old white male should know better, nor do I wish to go on and on about what is and isn't free speech. So much has been written on the subject already I point people to libraries, not the Web, but libraries.

"Love is liquid. Brew and be drunkards!" ~~Nordette And here's a link to the blog.

Mamalogues, you've been offended by some of my language. I apologize because I was not saying that you personally actually want to insult people. I put that statement in the form of a question knowing the answer would be "No," that you don't want to do that. You don't want to do that anymore than I think it's okay to insult people privately and declare I'm practicing free speech.

I also admit that I can see how you would believe that everything I said was directed at you because I responded to you in the thread, and for that I'm sorry. My comments reflect an accumulation of thoughts I built up reading comments on the Imus issue all over the blogosphere and in print. I've seen your argument presented by law students, young lawyers, and respected journalists. So, you've got some good company with you, but you should know that I don't agree with them either on this subject.

I don't think Imus' predicament can be whittled down to "who can say what" and double standards. I think there are some actual laws that may be applied to Imus' predicament that have nothing to do with racism or misogyny. People probably don't want to apply slander to what Imus said because it would force them to examine what comes out of their own mouths and what would happen if people held them accountable for what they say in a tangible way.

I think there's a strong case for saying the Imus situation falls in the defamation, slander, libel, and malicious intent category rather than under free speech. In responding to your comment, I forgot that I was responding to an individual and wrote my response more like a hard editorial.

You strike me as a young woman with a strong sense of fairness. From that perspective, I see your point. You want everyone to suffer the same penalties for the same types of deeds.

I have a strong sense of fairness as well, but I'm probably not as idealistic and responded to you from the more narrow sense that in actual court law free speech has limits with consequences and that Imus crossed one of those limits in a way that fits slander/defamation of character. He boxed himself in and the box collapsed.

The issues about race and misogyny make it harder to see the box. I consider the possibility that once the sponsors jumped ship and CBS officials saw more and more pieces about the Rutgers women and their parents that the idea "potential lawsuit" crossed their minds. At that point they had to consider how far they'd go to support Imus, and it probably was far more a money decision than they'd care to admit. Even if you win, a slander suit still cost you money and keeps the matter before the public for a longer period of time.

Shock jocks and some of the meaner political pundits hide behind the reality that most people don't want to go to court over defamation or slander. Usually the person attempting to get his/her reputation back gets more bad publicity and has more horrible things said about him/her when trying to defend his/her reputation. I think that Americans don't have recourse when defamed because of how the media attacks such stories isn't fair to those who've been injured. I don't think this climate gets us better news stories. I think it gets us more sensationalized coverage.

Neither do I think that supporting Imus within the context of free speech means the person is racist. However, I'm sure you recognize that there are some people, sadly a significant number, hiding behind free speech on this matter and declaring there's a double standard who are in fact racist and who find nothing wrong with what Imus said. What really outrages them is African-American leaders who object to anything related to African-American Civil Rights. They'd prefer they not protest anything, no matter how deplorable, and they want them to shut up already; shut up and never speak again. They hold them to higher standards than they hold "white" leaders, people who in reality represent everyone, as though African-American leaders must prove they're superhuman to people who actually don't think of them as human period. You don't seem to belong to the group that would think such things and be that unfair.

I hope this additional comment clarifies my point for you and lets you know that I was not wrestling with you as a person but with the double standard/free speech argument as applied to Imus and attitudes expressed all over the Net and in the brick and mortar world. In the narrow sense of Imus' predicament, I don't think the letter of law on free speech applies as much as people may think it does no matter how it looks on the surface, and I shudder to think that we would want the spirit of free speech to apply in such cases.

Nordette
PS: Cute baby and picture.

"Love is liquid. Brew and be drunkards!" ~~Nordette And here's a link to the blog.

Any ideas how we can get more of the rest of America to pay attention to the protests against violence, misogyny and homophobia in some elements of hip-hop and popular culture that have been going on since Jesse Jackson first decried sexually explicit lyrics in the 1970s? Maybe we can get more communities to show Byron Hurt's great documentary Beyond Beats and Rhymes. Maybe we can get book discussions going on BlogHer of works by Mark Anthony Neal, Joan Morgan, Patricia Hill Collins and Jelani Cobb. Maybe you can share information about those protest efforts with other country music fans -- I mean, what does Kid Rock think about all of this. Maybe we can get Aisha Shahidah Simmons' documentary NO! shown at BlogHer '07 -- but would people think her anti-violence documentary was only for black women?

What do you think? I'm open to ideas. Clearly there are a lot of people outside of the black community (and some people who identify themselves as being inside the community, such as Juan Williams and Jason Whitlock) who know nothing about the work that has been going on for years. Consequently, there are well meaning people out there who think people like Snoop Dogg are getting a free pass.

But it isn't the black community that put Snoop Dogg in a Chrysler commercial.

So this hurts all of us. How do we fight back -- together?

BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|Contributing Writer, Online Journalism Review