A Review of Imus's Appearance on Sharpton's Radio Show

It's a vocal violation of people's rights - that is what Al Sharpton is claiming in this piece just out from MSNBC - according to the report Imus made "made racially charged comments his own show about the Rutgers women's basketball team," and that even though he has apologized for those remarks, Sharpton is still calling for his firing.

The exchange that occurred on the Imus show ended with Imus remarking about the team, which includes eight black women, that they were some "nappy-headed hos."
It is unfortunate that these remarks are heard by so many, but does the amount of listeners that a comment has, make it any more or less acerbic? Imus is not known for being a sweet heart; he's noted for being salty and uses slang frequently. Are we dealing with over sensitivity because the issue has been pronounced racial in nature?

Why did Imus apologize? Pressure came from many different capable points on the scale, CBS radio, simulcast carriers and others, "It was completely inappropriate, and we can understand why people were offended. Our characterization was thoughtless and stupid, and we are sorry," Imus said, according to a transcript on MSNBC's Web site."
Does that apology sound politically motivated to you?

What has happened is that Imus stepped past the bounds of good graces in language, likely not the first time such has happened, likely not the last; but what has separated this one scenario out is the attention that it is getting. Was this attention a reason for the apologetic statement by Imus?

Not to thread to fine a needle but Imus has an established empire of support, a fan base that is immense, and certainly isn't in monetary need; hence, one has to wonder if his motivation to apologize weren't part of the deeper man, a man of principal, which comes through 99.9% of his show.

Voltaire' when asked about our freedom of speech said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death, your right to say it." People can become incensed and insulted, public people, but these athletes didn't ask to get labeled in such a way, yet, when you say that someone has tattoos as Imus did, isn't that usually construed as meaning they are rough and tough types?

Yes we hate labeling, and yes we especially hate it when it is employed chastising us, but the truth of the matter may reside in the fact that Imus was presenting a very pointed remark, a satire. Yes, it was in the poorest of taste, which he apologizes for, but the networks and sponsors response to him hardly seem fair- they are discussing possible limitations being applied to Imus. These instances of political correctness are where the fall of the freedom of speech begins, when we tie the hands of those who report, even in poor taste, it won't be long until the only thing we hear is what will be safe to be said.
When that occurs we are no longer the United States of variety and unity in diversity, for then we will have become something less. Are you going to support censoring speech?