Imus Lawyer: Bosses Could've Cut Remarks, sues CBS for $120 million

[Herman Munster]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OTJCE80&show_article=1

NEW YORK (AP) - A lawyer for Don Imus said Friday that the former radio host's bosses could have edited the on-air comments that got him fired—and the fact that they didn't meant they saw his remarks as routine for his often provocative show.
CBS Radio and MSNBC had delay buttons, but didn't use them when Imus made racist and sexist comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team, lawyer Martin Garbus said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"That means CBS and MSNBC both knew the language that was going out, and both knew the language complied with (Imus') contract. ... It was consistent with many of the things he had done," Garbus said.

CBS Radio owns Imus' former home radio station, WFAN-AM, and MSNBC televised his show.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3135895

Radio host Don Imus is going to sue CBS for $120 million, according to a draft copy of the complaint obtained by ABC News' Law & Justice Unit. The suit is expected to be filed next week. A draft copy of Imus's lawsuit says that the network expected him to be controversial and irreverent under the terms of his contract. And he claims Imus's show was on a five second delay that allowed the network to censor him if they wanted.

The draft points out that Imus wasn't fired for two weeks after the remarks were made. Meanwhile, four former FCC commissioners contacted by ABC News say they do not believe that the speech was actionable under current federal guidelines that prohibit profanity or indecency on public airwaves.

Imus was fired April 12, after he made insensitive remarks about the Rutgers women's basketball team.

Martin Garbus -- a powerful First Amendment lawyer who represented controversial comedian Lenny Bruce -- said he would file a complaint against the network in the days ahead.

[sandnsea]

1. I thought Imus said he was wrong

How sincere could his apology be to those girls if he's turning around and saying there's nothing wrong with what he said.

All any of this proves is how hateful and racist this country actually is, and how far some people are willing to go to protect their "right" to slander and demean other people.

[marshall]

8. I think he wants to share the blame

He isn't backing down from saying he was wrong, but he wants the network to share the blame. I think he is correct that the network made a profit on Imus being on the edge (and sometimes over the edge) of acceptability. He made an ass of himself with his comments, but the network was in a way encouraging his antics.

I would compare him to somebody like Evel Knievel who makes money by doing death defying feats, pushing the envelope, and living on the edge. If one day he is horribly injured, it is his fault but it is also his producers' fault.

[sandnsea]

10. The network didn't hire a bigot

If he wouldn't have said it to their face, he shouldn't have said it on the air. He's 66 years old and should know where the lines are by now.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. Evel Knievel only hurt himself

Big difference.

[marshall]

14. I don't give the networks that much credit

If they didn't want to hire a bigot, why'd they hire Don Imus. People have known for decades that he is a bigot. The radio and tv networks might have been cringing, but they were cringing all the way to the bank. Those that loved him and those that hated him alike tuned in to hear what he would say next, how far he would push the envelope, how he might convey his bigoted views, etc.

I do agree that he bears ultimate responsibility for what he said, but to say the networks did not know he was a bigot and that they were not complicit in his hatefulness is naive in my opinion.

And for Imus I think it's all about saving face. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't pledge to donate a settlement to charity (albeit mostly to his OWN charity).

[FloridaJudy]

2. Stop me before I slur again! n/t

[sam sarrha]

3. it is worth it to get rid of him.. maybe we can buy off Lush RimBaugh and savage and neil too

[EST]

4. Once again, Imus, this is NOT a first amendment issue.

The first amendment is designed to protect the essential, inalienable right of free speech, among other things, from the intrusion of an overzealous government, not a "regulation" of offensive behavior or a referee between people concerning standards of decency or tasteless, deliberately hurtful remarks.

Contracts, agreements, standards-those are all parts of the considerations we make between ourselves in order to throw as little sand into the gears of peaceful, healthy society as possible. Laws and rules have to conform to the overall outline or limits of the first amendment, but that is merely an establishment of where the line of separation is between your fist and my nose.

Imus was warned, years ago, in the dust up following his senseless and tasteless remarks about Gwen Ifill and he knew where the limits were, even though he was allowed an unconscionable latitude to offend almost everyone. His venom and thoughtless nastiness would, if said to me about someone I cared about, earn his getting his ass kicked from here to St. Louis.

It still would not be first amendment stuff; more like a test of how good his medical insurance was.

Nasty, offensive old coot-thought he could buy his way into people's good graces, or into heaven, by his admittedly good works with kids in desperate need of help. Even that altruistic work was rendered a shitpile because of his bragging about it and his attempt to use it as a shield to deflect criticism and anger he justly deserved for his unforgivable behavior.

[hiaasenrocks]

7. The lawsuit isn't on First Amendment grounds.

It's a breach of contract suit.

[madokie]

5. between you, me and the gatepost I think the imus firing

was more for imus saying for a couple weeks prior to the rutgers fiasco. cheney* needs to be hung and bush* needs impeached brought on by the outing of building 18 of Walter Reed fame. Course they couldn't use that itself, it would be too telling but that is what made rove and co, through Sharpton and Jackson, put the pressure on his statement about the girls, much juicier and keeps the true motives hiden. methinks

[no_hypocrisy]

6. Lawyer is using the Last Clear Chance doctrine and adopting it to contract law.

In tort law, there is an obligation to avoid harm to others. However, if you have a reasonable belief that someone is about to put you in harm's way and you have sufficient time to remove yourself from that harm, you now have an obligation to do so. And if you don't and you incur harm and damages arising from that harm, you contributed to your own situation.

Imus' contract had a provision wherein he promised not to broadcast a message that would harm the network by its provocative, if not inflammatory, message. It seems to me that he breached that clause by his utterance. Maybe the seven-second delay could have saved him, but the fact is he did what he promised he would not do.

I think this will never reach a courtroom. Imus is bargaining for a settlement out of court to go away with a pretense of respectability.

[LisaL]

9. Well, I think he got a case.

And he wasn't fired right away either, which I think should help with this lawsuit.

[AlCzervik]

12. actually his lawyer is pretty smart, the original suit was for $40 mill, if CBS settles

they'll be patting themselves on the back for saving 80 million. This is no endorsement of either side BTW, just an observation.

[Oeditpus Rex]

13. Imagine a columnist suing a newspaper

because editors didn't catch a mistake.



Come to think of it, that could happen these days.

[LisaL]

15. Imus is not suing them because they did not catch a "mistake."

He had a contract.
Multi-million $ contract, I might add.
He got fired.
I can't imagine many in his position wouldn't sue.
He could be laughing all the way to the bank in the end.

[Oeditpus Rex]

16. Ah, but he *made* a mistake

which resulted in his dismissal.

I haven't seen said contract (neither have you, I'd wager), but I'm reasonably sure it didn't say, "Imus can say whatever he wants and we'll give him multi-millions of dollars."