I would like to note an inaccuracy in the editorial about Don Imus. 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
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
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
