"There's also another kind of violence though that we're gonna have to think about. It's not necessarily physical violence but that the violence that we perpetrate on each other in other ways. Last week, the big news, obviously, had to do with Imus and the verbal violence that was directed at young women who were role models for all of us, role models for my daughter. ...[T]hat's a form of violence - it may be quiet, it may not surface to the same level of the tragedy we read about today and we mourn, but it is violence nonethesame."
Obama's latest messianic rantings on the Virginia Tech massacre, just disgusting.
Anyway, whenever there is hate speech, and someone is offended, that group is much more motivated to oppose the speech than anyone else, who will be accused of bigotry if they support blanket free speech. So, this happens for every ethnics group, and no one fights back, and viola, no more free speech.
It's similar to the political conflict in free trade. The overall consumer benefits from free trade, but the organized producer has the political motivation to go for protectionism. Happens over and over again, and voila, lots of protections. Luckily, there are other producers that need free trade to sell their products overseas, so they can fight back.
But, with free speech, Don Imus is most likely going to grovel to Al Sharpton rather than fight back. Imagine what things would be like if Don Imus decided he would take a hit? Knowing he would be fired anyway, why didn't he just go all out and say he was right to say what he did and that free speech must include the right to offend or its useless?