I actually agree with you. I just can't stand political correctness.
For the record, the whole notion of "political correctness" is a meme promoted by *CONSERVATIVES*/rightists in order to falsely portray themselves as besieged underdogs. In effect, however (and this is the goal), what that meme actually does is serve as a strategy to mischaracterize opposing views. The political correctness meme first picked up traction among rightists who balked at the practice of challenging/reframing identity terms like "people of color" in place of "coloreds." One of the relevant differences is that "colored" is a passive-voice description which turns (grammatically) a person into an object, while "person of color" keeps the PERSON aspect front and center and treats the person as a subject (someONE with agency and will). Rightists in general are hostile to that kind of nuance, and were (and still are) uncomfortable with anything which calls attention to their privilege on any axis, and so it became a general rhetorical tactic to try to re-cast developing identity terms as meaningless attempts to avoid offense (rather than as emerging currents in identity politics which came from the desire of oppressed people to define themselves rather than having their oppressors define them.
So there's a whole history and current to all of that, but rather than deal with it, the tactic is to just mock it as a form of dismissal.
I would hope Americans especially would be mature enough to see verbal dialogue and debate as the civilized way to handle disagreements. Forcing people into silence due to unwanted consequences IMHO carries with it the risk of suppressing thought to such an extent where in extreme cases people feel violence is the only way to make their points.
It's not a matter of forcing anyone into silence. Rather, it's about efforts to avoid REWARDING irresponsible and harmful views. The failure to provide some kind of penalty (at the very least, social shaming) of harmful ideologies and views is -- appropriately -- seen as giving a greenlight to even more harmful actions growing out of the perceived approval (of the harmful views). For instance, if Imus referred to the basketball players as "nappy headed hoes" and then no one said anything about it, the perception (right or wrong) is that on some level it's OK to dehumanize certain people. Then, next time, the bar is moved just a little bit, and it's treated as OK to say something even more disparaging, and so on. There's a sense of vigilance against basic dehumanization, and it is well grounded in history.
I have heard of people not in high profile (media) positions who were professionally punished for sharing their views. One case I'm thinking of right now a guy was demoted on his job and given a pay cut because he posted his opinion derived from his religious beliefs on Facebook, which is a PRIVATE social networking service where you have to ask for and get permission to even communicate with someone.
Again it hinges upon how public his job role is. If he's in a public role like policeman, firefighter, or spokesperson for a big company, etc., then expression of views which are contrary to the nature of constructive work with the public send the message that those organizations or businesses treat some parts of the population as being more important than others. If you're a database administrator who wouldn't be identified with the company (because you don't interact with the public in your job), then it wouldn't be a problem. If you ARE dealing with the public (i.e. you're a police officer), then (again, rightly or wrongly) there IS a basis to conclude that your comments on certain issues -- if they conflict with the stance of the organization you work for -- may undermine your ability to work effectively with certain groups of people. We'd still need to see the details of each specific case to get a better sense of things, but once again...freedom of speech doesn't mean you can just say whatever you want and not be held accountable for the impact of such expression upon organizations of which you are part. There's a very strong and reasonable basis, for example, to conclude that a cop who makes racist or sexist comments on a publicly accessible social forum or network is of questionable qualification with regards to his job, because a HUGE part of police work relies upon positive relationships with the larger community.
