Reply With Quote
Since Imus was not imprisoned, the First Amendment really isn't an issue. Anyone in America can be fired for saying the wrong thing at work.
The talk show host has hired a top First Amendment lawyer, and an unusual clause in his contract could give him a $40 million payday, writes Fortune's Tim Arango.
By Tim Arango, Fortune writer
May 2 2007: 11:27 AM EDT
NEW YORK (Fortune)CNN-- Don Imus, the tousled and acerbic radio host whose racial remarks engendered a media storm that triggered a swift upending of his career, is not going away quietly even if the imbroglio has all but disappeared from the national conversation in the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre.
For Imus, who made a career out of operating in the murky space between sop ric humor and high-brow political talk, there is the little matter of about $40 million left on his contract with CBS Radio - whose boss Les Moonves fired the shock jock on April 12. CBS' lawyers contend Imus was fired for cause and not owed the rest of the money.
But Imus has hired one of the nation's premiere First Amendment attorneys, and the two sides are gearing up for a legal showdown that could turn on how language in his contract that encouraged the radio host to be irreverent and engage in character attacks is interpreted, according to one person who has read the contract.
The language, according to this source, was part of a five-year contract that went into effect in 2006 and that paid Imus close to $10 million a year. It stipulates that Imus be given a warning before being fired for doing what he made a career out of - making off-color jokes. The source described it as a "dog has one- bite clause." A lawsuit could be filed within a month, this person predicted.
You hire shock jocks like Don Imus, you pay the price when they flame-out on air. That is, unless your 76AM, in which case you fire the executive producer, who probably never even saw the skit that got him fired, and you keep the Don Imuses.
Since Imus was not imprisoned, the First Amendment really isn't an issue. Anyone in America can be fired for saying the wrong thing at work.
Then why is Rosie O'Donnell still on tv?
No one is saying the first amendment is relevant here. However, I could see where the experience of a free speech lawyer would be a good thing to have here for both in the courtroom and in the media.
However, the 2nd part of your statement is false. Whether or not a contract a contract can be broken depends on what is stated in the contract. This is not an employee/employer situation but rather one of 2 parties engaged in a contract. Imus was not fired in the true sense of the word but his contract was voided. Apparently that may have been illegal.
Because she didn't say "nappy-headed ho" and she hates George Bush.
Imus hates Bush too, BTW.
Then again now adays, who doesn't?
Yoni, whottt, ray, gtown, snake . . . and the list goes onImus hates Bush too, BTW.
Then again now adays, who doesn't?
The word, "and," is a coordinating conjunction used to join words, phrases, and independent clauses.
Disagreeing with one, politically, doesn't mean you hate the person...unless, of course, you suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome.Then again now adays, who doesn't?
Only then could you translate a disapproval rating into hatred.
The thickness of Yoni's skin is directly proportional to Bush's approval rating.
Manny's right about this. There cannot be a First Amendment issue here because there is no state action -- no governmental en y did anything to curb Imus' speech; the action taken against him was an action by a private en y which has no real obligation to respect First Amendment rights.
Even if there were some state action, imprisonment isn't necessary to create an infringement on First Amendment rights. If the government does nothing more than force you to shut up, the First Amendment would be implicated (in theory, at least).
Given the nature of the contract, though, it's useful for Imus to have a lawyer who understands the nuances of free speech law -- someone who has experience in arguing what words mean (both socially and legally). This is a contract case, but the contractual issues are decidedly speech-based.
No problem. They will settle for undisclosed terms.
And Imus will find another talk show gig somewhere.
Well, anymore that's the nature of so much litigation. There are, relatively speaking, very few jury trials these days. Cases are filed, the parties conduct some discovery to determine the potential value of the case, and then they mediate to settle the thing before trial.
As for whether Imus will find another show to host, color me skeptical.
IMUS will be back on the soon enough.
Yeah, well, who friggin' cares.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
