The Don Imus episode was supposed to bring about a "national conversation on race," but don't hold your breath. Weeks after the shock jock aimed a racial slur at the Rutgers women's basketball team, it's hard to see how the nation is speaking any more honestly or openly about race than they had been before. And some of the attempts have been laughable. A New York Times article about shock jocks, with the wide-eyed thesis that radio's various "morning guys" continue to offend, was both alarmist and beside the point. Underneath the article's tsk-tsking about the sexist and ethnic banter was the assumption that each of us has the right not to be offended.

But we really have no such right – and in truth, free speech would lose its meaning if that became the national standard. Comedians and artists need to risk a little offense if their work is to be any good. Certain ideas and practices deserve ridicule – or at least, those who find them ridiculous have a right to say so. That doesn't mean Imus didn't cross a line – he did, egregiously – only that we should all acknowledge what we gain from those who sometimes approach the line in the interest of creativity and enlightenment.

Honesty also demands that our tolerance for free speech should be matched by zero-tolerance of those who, motivated by bigotry, turn to violence. Last week's passage in the House of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act was a step in the right direction. It extended the ability of federal authorities to assist and expand local prosecution of hate crimes and extended protection to those facing violence based on their real or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.

The bill actually ignited a much more interesting debate than the one surrounding Imus in that it raised important questions about the ability of religious groups and others to preach their traditions without running afoul of hate crimes statutes. The bill's crafters responded with important safeguards that protect such rights to free speech and religious expression.

The White House should recognize how this bill advances the fight against hate and how the objections of the religious Right were taken into account. President Bush should sign the bill.