What Don Imus recently said on air, as well as the resulting consequences, are not free speech issues. The government was not involved, and thus the First Amendment is not triggered. Now that that is out of the way, what the controversy is about is context and the consequences of exercising free speech in a particular context.
It can be argued that Don Imus single-handedly pioneered the shock jock genre of talk radio. Shock jocks gain and maintain their listeners by being inappropriate and often obscene. For instance Howard Stern, who recounts his confrontations with Imus in his book, Private Parts, is known for maintaining masochistic listeners who are so disgusted by what he says that, in anticipation of what he'll say next, they can't change the station.
The difference between Imus and Stern is that Stern stuck to his roots. While Imus gained popularity and managed to bring in legitimate guests such as political candidates, senators and representatives, Stern continued to interview little people and porn stars. And little porn stars.
Right or wrong, it's the least he could have expected.While Imus was brought on as the morning man for MSNBC via the simulcast of his radio show, Stern continued to interview transsexuals and homeless people. And homeless transsexuals. Stern continued to give his audience what they wanted – unbridled smut. And that audience grew. But Imus's audience began to morph into something different as he tried to gain legitimacy on the level of other serious journalists and talk show hosts.
With that legitimacy comes a responsibility that, in the end, cost Imus his job.
People have asked why what Imus said is any different from the racial and sexual epithets spewed forth by some rap artists and several popular stand-up comedians.
On one level, there is no difference – in any context, the phrases are offensive to some people. Imus, however, is not a rapper or a comedian. He is a talk show host who had an audience that expected something more from him. His audience didn’t tune in every day to hear about "hos." They wanted to hear some clever banter augmented by Imus's trademark irreverence.
While much of the backlash is social most of the true consequences are simply market-driven. Sponsors of the show pulled their ads for one reason only: they didn't want to lose money. We wish that CBS had the stones to admit that when it fired Imus. (The broadcaster never seemed to care about his many offenses until the advertisers revolted.)
Prominent individuals need to recognize that there is responsibility that comes with their stature. Charles Barkley once said professional athletes should not, because of their position, be role models. But, better or worse, we don't live in a world where that's feasible. What we've seen with Imus is an example of just how much responsibility comes with the ascension to prominence.
What Imus said was, at best, idiotic and, at least, unfortunate. His thirty year reign over the airwaves has ended for now. However, nobody should be surprised about that result.
Imus has been on the receiving end of a peculiar thing we call social justice. Right or wrong, it's the least he could have expected. TheSequitur.com Editorial Board welcomes its newest member-at-large, Thiago Mattos of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Senior Editor Jared Leone did not participate in this editorial. Senior Editor Dwayne Robinson abstains from all staff editorials.
Conclusions 
