Don Imus' Firing, the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech

The loss of Mr. Imus' job has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech or the First Amendment. The firing is an example of what happens when the Boss finds it economically advantageous to sack an employee.

Articles in these pages and comments appended to those pieces have discussed the discharge of Don Imus in terms of his freedom of speech and the First Amendment of the Constitution. Unfortunately, for Mr. Imus, the rights under the Constitution do not apply here.

Let me state for the record a few "truths" as I see them. Don Imus is a superbly talented interviewer, perhaps one of the best in the business. He, and his staff, do "push the envelope" in satirizing African-Americans, politicians of all political stripes, Catholics, and other groups. His barbs have, in the most part, been directed to those in the public eye who, by their actions, have placed themselves in a position where they are fair game for satire and, often, harsh commentary. Finally, the personal ad hominem attack on the women's Rutgers basketball team was unnecessarily crude, over the top and offensive. The ladies-targets neither deserved not warranted the disparagement offered by Mr. Imus.

On the other hand, the thought that these successful and self-assured young women were personally and grossly offended by the comments of a radio "shock jock" with whom they were likely not familiar, seems far fetched. I am certain that they had heard far worse and were not destroyed by the comments, uncalled for as they might have been.

The First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits Congress (and, later, the various states and local communities) from enacting any law that would criminalize speech. Even this has its limitations. Notwithstanding the views of some Supreme Court Justices that "no law" means "no law", it is generally accepted that obscenity and pornography are not protected by the Constitution, nor are "fighting words" designed to cause a riot or immediate civic unrest. Justice Holmes' comments about shouting, "Fire" in a crowded theater is an example of some limits on speech. Try joking at an airport about a bomb and see what happens.

If restrictions on speech imposed by government action are forbidden by the Constitution, what limits are there on speech in the private or non-governmental sector?

If a person is injured by the speech of another, the remedies are in the civil law, namely libel and slander, the former dealing with written words and the latter by verbal expressions.

In this country, for the most part, the defense of the truth is available. If I write an article stating that you are a car thief, wife beater and bank robber, your suit against me will fail if I can show that, for example, you were convicted of stealing a car, beating your - or someone's - wife and robbing the Bank of America branch on Main Street.

If I, without malice and without intending to make a misstatement of fact, utter a slanderous or libelous remark about another, I may still have a defense if the object of my statements is one who has placed themselves in the public eye. In other words, a politician is fair game for non-malicious criticism, even if the criticism is not wholly accurate or fairly presented. On the other hand, if I deliberately lie about a person, public figure or not, or a jury decides that I disregarded all avenues of research that would have shown my statements to be baseless, then I am in trouble. (Those subject to slanderous or libelous comments may well choose not to sue for a number of reasons. First, the publicity attendant to the lawsuit brings another round of publicity regarding the original allegation or statement. Second, a celebrity may decide that publicity is good, whether favorable or not, just so long as the name is spelled correctly. Finally, lawsuits are expensive.)

But Don Imus' situation is different. He was fired by CBS and MSNBC.

And the reasons have little to do with his choice of words or the purported damage to the young women from New Jersey.

As I suggest in an article now pending at this site, barring any statute, contractual or civil rights implications, an employer can fire anyone for any reason. (As a test, go up to your boss and state that he, or she, is a low-life degenerate who is, in addition, ugly. See ya'.) Don Imus was fired because his employers, faced with a loss of sponsorship, saw an economic disaster. If his employers had knowledge that there would be no loss of revenue, Imus would still be on the air.

I, personally, am going to miss Imus, Chuck, Bernie and the others. There may come a time that the powers in broadcasting determine that the loss of Imus is greater than the potential loss of current revenue; when that happens I will rejoice.