I would like to note an inaccuracy in the editorial about Don Imus ("Words of Imus not the real issue," April 11). First of all, his speech is not protected by the first amendment. His words constitute slander, and could be prosecuted as a form of defamation. The argument that the outcry against Imus is eroding first amendment rights is thus null.
Theoretically speaking, if the speech was protected in the first amendment, the outcry is not a source of concern. The boundaries of free speech also include the power of free speech that responds to the original free speech. Imus would have voiced his words, everyone else would have voiced theirs, and then action taken accordingly. The right to be published is not one in the constitution. He could still voice his opinions when his publishers (in this case, broadcasters) decide to drop him.
It appears that everyone else's free speech is advancing the cause of racial and sexual diversity and mutual respect. That does not seem worth lamenting to me.
