There should be a difference between what's: in poor taste, repulsive, juvenile, and to be shunned; and what's illegal. Too often some people who don't like something want to make it illegal. We do too much of that as it is.

If decency standards are to be imposed on over-the-air broadcasts, why not on satellite broadcasts? Why not on cable TV? Why not on Internet radio, podcasts, and blogs? Yes, there are historical reasons (limited radio bandwidth, etc.), but one could argue that the Internet was founded by US Government investment so it has an interest in keeping it "decent" too. I don't think it's a good argument, but it is one that could be made. Stuff like this is usually like squeezing a fist full of Jello - if you compress it in one place with decency standards and the like, it will just come out somewhere else.

Even if [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imus_in_the_Morning|1.6 M people] listened to Imus every week, that's less than 1% of the country. It seems to me the market was working. As long as he's not advocating violence, conspiracy theories meant to incite people, or other things that are obviously immediately harmful to society, then there should be a pretty high threshold for the government to get involved in his content. The rest of us need to do 2 things if "entertainers" bother us: 1) write them and their management and tell them that we don't like it; 2) don't patronize them or their advertisers and let them know why. Other than that, I'm not sure that much more needs to be done in most circumstances.

Driving Coulter and the like off the air would just make her more of a celebrity in her circle. Let her rant in her corner of the world, and you write scathing rebuttals if you're so inclined. But let's not get the government involved just yet.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who thinks it's rather sad that Imus and the Duke lacrosse team are such big stories when so many more important things get short shrift. Maybe I'll write my local TV stations...)