There is an interesting blog debate doing on right now between Bill Christofferson, and John McAdams on free speech.  Xoff began with this take on something Charlie Sykes did some time ago:

Richard Abdoo is the CEO of Wisconsin Energy Corp., based in Milwaukee. Earlier this fall, Abdoo sent a $250 check to the peace group Not in Our Name (www.notinourname.net).

As a result, his name was listed as one of the 30,000 endorsers of the group's "Statement of Conscience Against War and Repression." And he was identified as "Chairman of the Board, president and CEO, Wisconsin Energy Corp." Abdoo said the donation was strictly a personal one.

Early in the workweek of November 11-15, rightwing talk radio hosts in Milwaukee got wind of Abdoo's endorsement and pilloried him for it.

Xoff goes on to suggest that this is crushing of dissent by the tyranny of talk radio.  McAdams countered with this:

Sykes, like other talk radio hosts, attacked Abdoo for the contribution, and after a considerable public uproar, Abdoo sent out an e-mail apologizing for having made it.

For Christofferson, this is about how "right-wing talk radio, which -- aided and abetted by the squishy local newspaper -- used the airwaves to shut up a dissenting voice in Milwaukee."
...
Deeply skeptical that Christofferson really believes that people should be able to say anything without consequences, we searched the blog for "Don Imus."

And of course we found a post by Christofferson's cohort RKing on the shock jock.
...
If somebody could corner Christofferson on this, we're pretty sure that he would explain that what Richard Abdoo did was . . . well . . . good, and therefore he should not face any flack because of it. But on the other hand, Imus (like Rush and Hannity and O’Reilly and Fox News) is evil, and thus it was good to take his job away.

It's a predictable debate, and I also think an important one.  The 1st Amendment, of course, is a restriction on government stifling speech.  And Mr. Abdoo was of course free to speak as he pleased, just as Charlie Sykes did.  But this isn't about the legalities of free speech.  It's about the spirit of it.  And the question I want to ask is... how far should your speech follow you?

My problem with McAdams comparing what happened to Abdoo with what happened to Imus is the context in which they spoke.  Don Imus is a radio talk show host, who said something in the course of his job which was being criticized.  That is completely appropriate.  If you're paid to talk, and your speech is found to be offensive, then criticizing that speech is appropriate.  Richard Abdoo on the other hand is the CEO of a large corporation, who made a private donation to a cause he believed in.  He was not doing this in affiliation with the company he ran.  Moreover, the company he ran has no connection with anything having to do with what he donated to.  They were completely separate.  Yet Charlie connected the two, and criticized him harshly not only because of who he donated to, but the unrelated issue of the company he works for.

This seems troubling to me.  I want to be clear.  I don't think for a second that Sykes shouldn't have been allowed to do what he did.  But should he have done it?  Is it reasonable to call attention to where he works, and call for letters or phone calls to his company, when what he said has nothing to do with his job performance?  The implication in doing so is that the company may ask for his resignation in order to satisfy it's customers.  Is that a reasonable thing to do, when his job has no relation to what he did or who he supported?

Don Imus is paid to speak.  Richard Abdoo is paid to run a company.  How far should your speech follow you?  Because the implications of having no holds bar attacks on where you work is pretty scary.