By Christopher Gabriel
Blog Harbor and CGabriel.com

While I am a major proponent of the First Amendment – and really, who isn’t? – I’m beginning to wonder if it’s a conditional Amendment.  You know, the fine print at the bottom that nobody ever reads?  Sometimes it comes in the form of a disclaimer.  Other times, it’s the 1000-word paragraph spelling out why the great deal you thought you got on something… actually isn’t.

Of course in the United States Constitution, there’s no fine print in the Bill of Rights.  But to listen to various sources you’d think the First Amendment was modeled after a game show:  “Ok Bill, say exactly what you think but if our studio audience doesn’t care for your comments, you’ll be dragged off the stage!”

So Don Imus did it again.  If you didn’t hear it, he and veteran sportscaster Warner Wolf were doing a segment on Imus’ radio program.  The topic was Dallas Cowboys player Adam Jones, formerly Pacman Jones, and his frequent run-ins with the law.  As Wolf was speaking, Imus asked, “What color is he?”  Wolf responded, “African American.”  Imus, practically on cue, followed with, “Well, there you go.  Now we know.”

Imus insists his response had everything to do with African Americans being picked on by the police.  That, in itself, is a loaded comment. 

To begin with, Adam Jones is one of the great idiots of his time.  Like bees to honey, this man seems able to find trouble simply by waking up in the morning.  I can’t speak to how African Americans are, or are not, treated by police any more than I can speak to how whites or Hispanics are treated by the police.  What I do know, however, is that police go after people that break the law regardless of their color.

Secondly, as one who has lived in the inner cities of New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Los Angeles, I have African American friends in all of those cities who emphatically state that kind of thinking, that police target them, is playing the victim card at its worst.

Another problem with Imus’ comment was his explanation that what you heard wasn’t at all what you thought.  Hearing it for myself, Imus’ defense was specious, at best.  His inflection, to my ears, had an undertone of something far different than his concern over African Americans being singled out by police.

And for the record, when Imus had his major incident with the Rutgers women’s basketball team last year, I ripped him on my radio program for the utter stupidity and ignorance of his remark.  However, I found it much more troubling that the Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were able to essentially pressure WFAN and MSNBC into firing him – you can hear my comments in full in the Audio Archives of my website.  The clip is called CBS, Don Imus, Rutgers . . . my take.

I will never understand who decided that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are the filter through which all comments from whites must pass.  After Imus made his latest remark, it was Sharpton who said,

“We will determine in the next day or so whether or not his remark warrants direct action on our part as we did in April of last year.”

And the world can rest just a bit easier thanks to Al Sharpton.

The deeper issue in all of this is, quite simply, what to do?  Where have we come as a nation when the topic of free speech is at center court?

This is what the First Amendment states:

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.

If you want to speak out on something, have at it.  That’s one of the many things that makes our country great.  However, there is an implicit understanding that free speech may also have consequences.  You can stand up in a court of law and scream obscenities at a judge if you so desire.  But doing so will likely get you cited for contempt of court.   

In the case of Imus, he was speaking his mind on his radio program.  What he seemed to imply wasn’t pleasant and suggested he’s learned nothing from his Rutgers situation.

But here’s the question:  Has the media had a wild overreaction to his comment?  Is it possible this falls into the category of “if you don’t like what he says or seems to stand for, don’t listen to him?”  The trickle-down effect will lead advertisers to pull out, ratings to drop and Imus to be banished.  And doesn’t it stand to reason his current bosses at ABC are equipped to handle the matter without Al Sharpton rushing in just in time to make CNN, Fox and MSNBC’s broadcasts?

Don Imus is someone I used to enjoy listening to most every morning when I lived in New York.  His ascerbic wit and broad spectrum of guests always made for entertaining radio.  But at the same time, there was an element of the show – and him – that made me uncomfortable.  I could never put my finger on it but as the years have gone by, it’s pretty clear what bothered me.  My line of what’s fair game and what’s out of bounds was crossed by him a few too many times.  There’s funny and there’s hurtful; the two don’t cross paths.

I would love to see racism be little more than a distant memory during my lifetime.  I would also welcome a renewed attempt by people to take a deep breath by being a lot less trigger-happy when they hear anyone of any color, any religion or any ethnicity make a comment that runs the gamut of questionable to offensive.  It’s gotten to the point where if you say something the least bit out of step, someone is on the news coming after you and your job.

I’m not for a second absolving Imus.  Not hardly.  But bad apples – even ones only bordering on rotten – have a way of being weeded out.  Sometimes they’re hidden by the better ones but sooner or later, they fall to the ground.

For Blog Harbor and more cool stuff visit CGabriel.com