RSS 2.0 FeedDon Imus And The First Amendment
by Doug MataconisSeveral of comments to the posts I’ve written at Below The Beltway on the Don Imus story — here and here — have raised the issue of the First Amendment and Imus’s Freedom of Speech. It is, however, entirely wrong to characterize anything that’s going on in this case as a First Amendment issue.
First of all there’s the text of the First Amendment itself:
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.
In other words, Freedom of Speech, as a Constitutional issue, only means that you have the right to say what you want without the government punishing you, and even then there are things you can’t say. Libel and slander laws are not barred by the First Amendment. Neither are laws against defamation. Saying that Don Imus had a First Amendment right to make the stupid comments that he did doesn’t really mean anything, because we’re not really talking about the government punishing him here.
Imus, however, isn’t just talking. He’s an employee using the property of someone else — specifcally MSNBC and CBS Radio — and they have the right to determine how it’s used and whether something that is broadcast is appropriate or not. So far, they’ve suspended him for two weeks, but that may not be the end of the matter; the powers-that-be at CBS Radio may decide that it is no longer in their business interest to be associated with Don Imus or his radio program. If that’s the case, he may never return to the airwaves again.
It may be a bad business decision, it may be unfortunate that they are bowing to pressure from people like Al Sharpton, but the one thing it wouldn’t be is a violation of Don Imus’s rights.
Precisely. Freedom from government prohibition does not mean freedom from consequences. All behaviors have consequences.
Comment by Jerry Park — April 10, 2007 @ 1:00 pmWow, the Imus thing is just crazy. I personally have mixed feelings about it. If any of you care to read it, one of our writers over at Highbrid Nation worked with Imus over at WFAN for several years and recently chimed in on the whole situation. He also reveals some details that the media is failing to report on in regards to the suspension
Comment by Evorgleb — April 10, 2007 @ 1:08 pmMullah Cimoc say ameriki society not free now. this like a stalinism. tv show make woman the power position and beat down the man him so stupid.
this for punish ameriki for iraq war. ameriki woman to boss the man, lesbian control government, this destroy all ameriki for not having the baby but kill abortion all the child.
now the govt force him girl child take the shot for destroy reprodution system. make mandatory law. this only for beneift pharmacutical company.
so sad ameriki destroyed complete for be obedient slave of zionist masters in tel aviv.
stop1984now@yahoo.com
Comment by Mullah Cimoc — April 10, 2007 @ 11:09 pmThank you Doug, I also thought it was a First Amendment issue. I agree with your answer.
Comment by Richard — April 11, 2007 @ 7:05 amThe argument made is that a corporation is free to punish – and losing a job is not an insignificant punishment – someone for saying something. Thus, the fact that the Constitution, as noted, does not protect an individual from a corporation’s judgment of what should and should not be said does not mean that the individual’s freedom of speech is not being limited. It just means that freedom of speech doesn’t really exist in a society where most people rely on corporations for employment, and where employment is necessary for shelter, food, medicine.
Comment by Mark — April 12, 2007 @ 5:08 pmMark,
Freedom of speech, outside of government interference, is a matter of property rights. If you come on my property and call my dogs ugly and my wife a bad cook, I’ll throw your ass out. It doesn’t matter to me if I’ve given you a job or not, I wouldn’t hesitate to fire you if I had.
You have every right to say whatever you want to say. But you have no right to force someone to keep you employed if you cross the line.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — April 12, 2007 @ 5:21 pmI have spoken with a Bureau Chief/Director at the FCC. Imus gets his “free speech” on two technicalities. Imus may sue his employers for breach of contract. Stay tuned!
Comment by Patricia — April 12, 2007 @ 6:04 pmPatricia,
That is highly unlikely. Most performer/celebrity contracts contain provisions that allow the employer to dismiss the performer for a variety of reasons.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — April 12, 2007 @ 6:36 pmThis is INDEED a First Amendment issue. Don Imus was paid by CBS to express his opinions. He was doing his job,doing exactly what his employers paid him to do.
There is no free speech if CBS can fire a talk show host for expressing his views,no matter how outrageous those views might be.
Comment by Jeff — April 12, 2007 @ 10:12 pmOh please give me another chance, CBS. If you don’t bring me back, I’ll be forced to sell hot dogs or drive a cab just like the other towelheads you see everyday.
Comment by Don Imus — April 12, 2007 @ 10:42 pmJeff:
Nice try, but there are two problems with that. The first is that CBS is not preventing Imus from saying whatever he likes. The second is that CBS is not obligated to provide their private property as a platform for Imus to exercise his free speech. There is no Constitutional issue here.
Imus was a dumb ass for saying what he said. The reaction by Sharpton and Jackson is just as bad. Worse, really, because they won’t stand up and say that comments like that are plain wrong regardless of the ethnicity of the person making the comment. That’s very hypocritical. It is perilously close to being racist behavior on their part.
Comment by Adam Selene — April 12, 2007 @ 11:53 pmDoes CBS fire on-air personalities (contracted / employed specifically to express their personal views) when they call the President (that’s right – any President) names?
I don’t hear too much about consequences imposed for similar (or worse) expressions against our national leaders. I guess student athletes deserve better. I think this is sensationalism by the press, and the media love it because it sells soap. Consequently, I am one of William Walter’s “Sheeple” for participating in this discussion.
Thoughtfully,
Muser
Comment by Muser — April 13, 2007 @ 1:37 pmThe First Amendment in regard to employment doesn’t apply in this case. But to bring a man to court on a civil action for monetary compensation to be decided by the “government” does seem to me that Imus is protected under the 1st Amendment.
Further, how much worse is it when Rosie O’donnel spats off on … er… well EVERYTHING, but let’s just go with Mr. Trump…She remarked on his hair, and his way of life. Wasn’t that all, that was said here too? Nappy headed, ho. If neither statement was true….then what’s the big deal?!?!? If they are true…then he’s just stating the obvious.
His comments were about hair and typical college life! Should “white-folk” raise up in protest everytime some rapper spats off “CRACKER” “WHITEBREAD” “HO” “BITCH” “PURITAN” “TIGHT-ASS”.
It seems the race issue is a ONE-WAY street.
Comment by Mac — April 14, 2007 @ 10:25 am