Tapsearch Com EditorImus sues
May 2nd 2007 23:42
This is a bizarre turn of events, to be sure:
To me, what needs to be absolutely clear is that while he hired a First Amendment lawyer, this is not a per se First Amendment case. As I said before, the First Amendment protects you against government censorship -- not against your boss firing you. If that were the case, someone who talks for a living (like Imus) could not be fired for doing his job badly.
What this case will hinge on is the clause in his contract. Without seeing it, there's no way to tell whether it applies to this specific incident, but it will be interesting to watch.
There's also this:
By Robert VerBruggen
For Imus, who made a career out of operating in the murky space between sophomoric 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.
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.
To me, what needs to be absolutely clear is that while he hired a First Amendment lawyer, this is not a per se First Amendment case. As I said before, the First Amendment protects you against government censorship -- not against your boss firing you. If that were the case, someone who talks for a living (like Imus) could not be fired for doing his job badly.
What this case will hinge on is the clause in his contract. Without seeing it, there's no way to tell whether it applies to this specific incident, but it will be interesting to watch.
There's also this:
[Employment lawyer] Bernabei also said that any contract stipulations that allow for provocative content on Imus' show are probably balanced by "something in the contract about appropriate content."
She said, "I'm sure CBS has something about conduct - that he can't use profanity and has to abide by FCC regulations."
So under this argument, the case could turn on whether Imus' comments - which referred to members of the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos" - meets the definition of profanity under FCC guidelines. The FCC, on its Web site, defines profanity as "including language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance."
She said, "I'm sure CBS has something about conduct - that he can't use profanity and has to abide by FCC regulations."
So under this argument, the case could turn on whether Imus' comments - which referred to members of the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos" - meets the definition of profanity under FCC guidelines. The FCC, on its Web site, defines profanity as "including language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance."
By Robert VerBruggen
| 35 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
