I remind those who are crying "free speech" over Imus's comments to recall what the First Amendment actually says:
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.
The First Amendment does not protect a talk-show host who works for a
private company from being fired if he insults a large group of viewers. When the company realizes that it's losing ratings and advertising revenue, it can fire the talk-show host. If you work for a consulting firm and call one of your clients a whore or a nigger or a fag, your company has every right to fire you. If you then try to sue your company crying "free speech", your case won't even make it to court.
If we had Congress passing bills banning hate speech, people would have every reason to be upset and worry about slippery slopes. But that is not what has happened. Unfortunately, many people here have allowed the right wing to redefine "free speech" as "being politically incorrect", while we have gradually lost ground on our real right to free speech. Under the Bush administration, the FBI has been spying on environmental groups, sending undercover agents to monitor protest meetings, and putting people on no-fly lists for publishing articles or making films criticizing the government. People have been afraid to attend protests for fear of ending up on a government list of suspected terrorists.
What's really worrisome is that a majority of Americans apparently have no clue what free speech is all about. If they knew what it meant, perhaps they would make use of it more often. The right to protest, to write letters to one's congressperson, to criticize the government on a web site, or to borrow a controversial book from the library without fear of reprisal is protected speech. Imus's vitriol isn't.