Michael Savage Banned from the UK

[grumbler]

The absurdity is that we continue to give him the public format to do so. The right to free speech is one thing; the right to publicly broadcast abuses of such over FCC-regulated airspace is not.

I think we'd see some actual progress if we started forcing, not just the studios, but the jockeys to apply for a renewable FCC broadcasting license as well, we could take these guys down long before it becomes this much of a controversy.

The problem with vetting speech so as to be allowed or disallowed is that such an action would rather obviously violate the First Amendment.

Much of Savage's own speech could be classified as "libel," so revoking his license for those offenses would not be unconstitutional.

And, no, Savage has generally been pretty careful to avoid libel, your own legal opinions nothwithstanding.  Of course, there is a legal system to ascertain whether or not he oversteps those bounds, so we don't need the executive branch to duplicate the judicial.

[alfred russel]

that Savage fellow would be certainly charged with "hate speech" in Canada. but then he would exploit the spotlight and come out ahead with a lot of earned media.

it's far far better to call him "idiot" and then move on.

The final absurdity of the Home Office ban is that huge numbers of British people have now listened to or watched Mr Savage, when they might otherwise have rubbed along without even knowing he existed

yeah.

The absurdity is that we continue to give him the public format to do so. The right to free speech is one thing; the right to publicly broadcast abuses of such over FCC-regulated airspace is not.

I think we'd see some actual progress if we started forcing, not just the studios, but the jockeys to apply for a renewable FCC broadcasting license as well, we could take these guys down long before it becomes this much of a controversy.

Much of Savage's own speech could be classified as "libel," so revoking his license for those offenses would not be unconstitutional.

My take is that people should be able to say whatever they want--excluding advocating violence or slander--under broad free speech protections. I don't care for "hate speech" concepts for people like Savage or pulling broadcasting licenses. If people want to listen to his ranting, that is their business. Supposedly he has the third or fourth largest audience in the country, so he is resonating with somebody.

But people don't have a right to visit another country. At the start of the thread I was on the side of the UK and thought that this was funny, but the Boris Johnson editorial made me reconsider somewhat. I'm somewhat lukewarm on this, though I still think it is funny to put Savage in the same boat as the other people being kept out.

[Neil]

I think it is disingenuous to expect a country to extend every and all of its liberties, awarded to citizens, to foreigners coming to visit. Show me a single country in the world that allows everybody to enter its borders, unless they break the law of the land, and then the criticism of the UK over this would be justified.

They let you in.  Savage is clearly less hateful than you.

[Sheilbh]

I wish Boris were my mayor

No you don't.

There have been a couple of article about this but Boris is a bit dual personality.  There's Mayor Boris who's a liberal multiculturalist given to hinting at grands projets and whose conservatism boils down to slightly smaller, greener more local city government.  That's required because he's running London, though London mayors don't have a great deal of power.

Then there's Daily Telegraph/national Boris.  He harrumphs in the odd column in a way that reminds the rest of the country he's still around and to remind the party that he's still there and maybe a bit more conservative than Cameron.

As a writer in the Daily Mail put it:

Having been elected, he has created a national platform for himself from which he lobs, with enormous charm and in a spirit of apparent benevolence, the occasional rotten sprout in the direction of the Tory leader...

    As the months have passed, and Mr Johnson has shown himself to be very far from the clot of widespread perception, the Conservative leader would not be human if he did not want the Mayor of London to be a little less of a success.

    Broadly speaking, Boris has hit upon the wheeze of presenting himself as a Left-wing Tory in London, where the electorate is so inclined, while on the national stage he positions himself farther to the Right.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1178160/STEPHEN-GLOVER-Boris-proved-hes-dummy-So--waxwork--watch-Mr-Cameron.html
And a Guardian writer's take:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/05/boris-conservatives-cameron

[DontSayBanana]

I'm not considering vetting free speech, but rather requiring a license to use the venue, which is NOT unconstitutional; if it was, the FCC could not require stations to have operating licenses, because they couldn't enforce violations.

Alfred, you mention advocating crime. However, his comment that you posted regarding college student rapes would be pretty much a textbook example of advocating a crime. Also, defamation per se typically also covers accustions of "inchastity." Those violent, incendiary comments he made in that context would have been a perfect example of the 1% of defamation cases that can be tried under criminal law.

I'm only advocating licensing show hosts as, with the first amendment, it would still take something pretty spectacular to get an individual's broadcasting license suspended, but Michael Savage has crossed that line where something could have been done at least once before.

BTW, the only reason he hasn't been sued left and right is because he's been careful not to push too hard on individuals, while the handful of organizations he's crossed the line with shot themselves in the foot on right to sue- GLAAD and CAIR both tried to take their own forms of "punitive action" that would have degraded any serious libel suit into "he said, she said."

[Habbaku]

I'm not considering vetting free speech...
I'm only advocating licensing show hosts...

You're advocating it with the intent of shutting down a broadcast that you disagree with and feel has crossed the line of legality.  There is already a procedure for that (under existing libel/slander laws).  You may not think you are advocating vetting free speech, but that is what licensing in the manner you describe amounts to.

[Berkut]

I'm not considering vetting free speech, but rather requiring a license to use the venue, which is NOT unconstitutional; if it was, the FCC could not require stations to have operating licenses, because they couldn't enforce violations.\

The moment you define violation to include unpleasant political speech, you are restricting free speech.

If Savage has done something libelous or illegal, then sue or arrest him. The FCC, no matter how much the Dems might screech for it, is not in the business of vetting opinions.

[Berkut]

It is interesting how thin the dedication to fundamental rights really are, when it comes right down to it. I am always surprised how quickly many people will advocate for removing rights.

[garbon]

Alfred, you mention advocating crime. However, his comment that you posted regarding college student rapes would be pretty much a textbook example of advocating a crime.

Can you explain this to me?

[Sheilbh]

It is interesting how thin the dedication to fundamental rights really are, when it comes right down to it. I am always surprised how quickly many people will advocate for removing rights.

Foreigners don't have the right to come to any country, it's entirely up to the government of another country whether you get in or not.

Now I think a Michael Savage figure, if he were British, should be able to spout his bullshit - if he stopped short of advocating violence - but as a non-citizen I can understand why the Home Office would decide to not grant him a visa.  I can't understand why they'd release a list of people who they won't give visas to, to demonstrate what they won't tolerate.  I think providing a sort of list or definition of what isn't welcome would be better.

I'd be interested in that because I don't think either Savage, or Farrakhan for that matter, have called for violence as some of the Muslim clerics on the list have rather the worry is that they'll spark 'intercommunal violence' or something similar.  I'd want to know what, short of calling for violence, isn't acceptable for someone who wants a visa.

[dps]

I think we'd see some actual progress if we started forcing, not just the studios, but the jockeys to apply for a renewable FCC broadcasting license as well, we could take these guys down long before it becomes this much of a controversy.

Progress towards what, suppressing POVs that you don't agree with?

[derspiess]

No you don't.

Yeah, I still do.  Our guy is boring.

[alfred russel]

I'm not considering vetting free speech, but rather requiring a license to use the venue, which is NOT unconstitutional; if it was, the FCC could not require stations to have operating licenses, because they couldn't enforce violations.

Alfred, you mention advocating crime. However, his comment that you posted regarding college student rapes would be pretty much a textbook example of advocating a crime. Also, defamation per se typically also covers accustions of "inchastity." Those violent, incendiary comments he made in that context would have been a perfect example of the 1% of defamation cases that can be tried under criminal law.

I'm only advocating licensing show hosts as, with the first amendment, it would still take something pretty spectacular to get an individual's broadcasting license suspended, but Michael Savage has crossed that line where something could have been done at least once before.

BTW, the only reason he hasn't been sued left and right is because he's been careful not to push too hard on individuals, while the handful of organizations he's crossed the line with shot themselves in the foot on right to sue- GLAAD and CAIR both tried to take their own forms of "punitive action" that would have degraded any serious libel suit into "he said, she said."

I agree with Berkut that the FCC shouldn't be in the business of filtering opinions.

As for the quote, I'll repost it below, keeping in mind i found everything on wikipedia:

Critics such as GLAAD, FAIR, and Dave Gilson of Salon.com accuse Savage of fascist leanings,[36] racism,[16] homophobia,[37] and bigotry[16] because of his controversial statements about homosexuality, Arabs, Islam, feminism, sex education, and immigration.[38] Savage intimated in a broadcast on Disney-owned KSFO-FM, that the possibility of forcible rape was a reason why female high school students might find it exciting to feed homeless people in San Francisco. On his September 21, 1999 broadcast, while voicing his contempt for San Francisco's homeless and the efforts to help them, Savage, a long time Bay Area radio personality, said that female students who come from a Marin County private school to feed and provide services to the homeless "can go in and get raped by them because they seem to like the excitement of it..."[39] On the March 18, 2003, broadcast of The Savage Nation Michael Savage called Elizabeth Smart, "Snow White." Savage then went on to say that if he were writing a newspaper article about what had happened to Elizabeth Smart that the headline would be, "Snow White Gets Raped By Bum In White Robes." Michael Savage then said that if he were going to write a book about what happened to Elizabeth Smart that the title would be, "LIZZIE DOES UTAH." [40]

That is incredibly offensive and tasteless, and it is reasonable to pressure radio stations to pull him off the air and threaten boycotts of sponsors. However, I don't see any incitement to violence.

[Martinus]

Incidentally, I think you guys are forgetting that Europe and the US have quite different models of freedom of speech, and this doesn't just boil down to whether we ban or allow hate speech.

For example, while the framework of speech protection in most European countries is perhaps narrower than in the US, we are also big on the economic aspects of freedoms. For example, you cannot be discriminated in employment because of your opinions; parties get alloted airtime on public media during election campaigns etc.

We just do things differently here.

[Neil]

Incidentally, I think you guys are forgetting that Europe and the US have quite different models of freedom of speech, and this doesn't just boil down to whether we ban or allow hate speech.

Actually, it boils down to the nonexistance of freedom of speech in Europe.