Shock jocks annoy me. They have all the maturity, charm and intent of a child screaming "Poop" at a family dinner. They want to attract attention, to exert power, however base and pathetic, over people and generally make a big deal over nothing.

My one consolation is that shock jocks remind me of the oafish frat boys from college. Perhaps this is where the most loathsome found employment?

Shock jocks hide behind the shield of humour. "Hey, I'm just making a joke. Don't you have a sense of humour?" Failing that, they claim protection under the First Amendment. In this, they are like extremist wingnuts (both the rare leftist and the ubiquitous rightist variety) on talk radio. They claim to "speak from the gut," to "say what the common man is thinking."

Don Imus recently was ensnared by his own words when he called the Rutgers Women's Basketball Team a bunch of "nappy-haired hos." (I don't speak that jargon, but I gather it means something along the lines of 'whores in dreadlocks.') Now he's facing fines, censure, protests and calls for his dismissal. Some are even saying that he should be prosecuted under hate speech.

Bleeding-heart-liberal that I am, you may be surprised to hear that I don't think he should be subject to any criminal remedies. Not fines, not prosecution, not hate speech. In this one arena, I feel the First Amendment must be upheld.

To quote Voltaire, "The only speech worth protecting is unpopular speech."

However, I do feel his words are worth consequence. If those offended want to boycott CBS (or whomever his network happens to be), that's fine. Boycott advertisers on that network? Dandy. Protest in front of the offices? So long as it's legal (paperwork, not impeding traffic, etc.)

Those are all largely paper tigers. They make good press (especially for competing networks.) They allow people to feel good that they're doing something. But they're largely ineffectual.

My proposal? Hit him where it hurts. We are a ridiculously litigious society. The Rutger's Women's Basketball team should simply sue him for defamation. Those who are offended could join in the fun for "emotional distress" or any other charge they can pull out of somewhere.

With freedom comes consequence. I have freedom of speech on this site within limits. Even within those limits, I can tread toes and grate nerves. Should I, then it is my responsibility to bear consequences. Apologize. Clarify. Endure censure. All things Imus has done. Or, mount a defense, explain and express my own opinion about those offended. As I am now.

But, if people won't give it a rest, they should put their money where their mouth is and retain the not-inconsequential services of a lawyer to file suit; to make him literally pay for what he said.

Or, they should recognize this for the puff of smoke it is when we look back at it in two years' time.