Michael Savage Banned from the UK

[Ed Anger]

The way Obama is going, we are in year nine of Bush II.

That should make the conservative's happy.  Every conservative is at heart at monarchist.

I'm mostly happy with the magic negro so far. I can see Olbermann's heart breaking on his show, and Glen Beck is frothing at the mouth. Good stuff.

[DontSayBanana]

Was avoiding this thread for a little while to avoid the responses, but I'll bite on Ank and Berk's responses: how is vetting sexual assault not incitement to violence? He's pretty clearly implying that you'd be fulfilling a college girl's fantasy by raping her. I realize it's Wiki, but still...

I'm not for pulling a distasteful speech (otherwise, I'd be screaming for the heads of most of the shock jockeys and their ilk), but I'm wondering why we're not enforcing our own recognized limitations to free speech in extreme cases such as that, and thinking out loud as to what would be more effective with less legal grey area.

Repeating, in my example, a crime would still have to be committed to pull the license, although I guess the realist side of me sees how the system would be abused and thus break.

[Neil]

The way Obama is going, we are in year nine of Bush II.

That should make the conservatives happy.  Every conservative is at heart at monarchist.

Every decent human being is a monarchist.

[Razgovory]

I'm mostly happy with the magic negro so far. I can see Olbermann's heart breaking on his show, and Glen Beck is frothing at the mouth. Good stuff.

I'd be happy if Glen Beck would froth.  He's got this weird airhead calm I find disturbing.  He's got a whole Marshal Applewhite thing going on.

[grumbler]

I'm pretty sure most continental Europe countries have hate crimes legislation.

I am pretty sure they do as well.  The US has such laws as well.  There is a difference between hate crimes laws and hate speech laws, though, in that hate crimes have to involve an actual crime (such as incitement to violence) rather than mere speech not intended to incite the audience to break the law.

France, notably, has seen a number of cases similar to those in Canada sask pointed out.  In France, like in Canada, the cases were generally thrown out because they did not incite a violation of the law, but, OTOH, Bridgette Vardot has been repeatedly fined for complaining about the growing Muslim influence in France (speech which would certainly be free in the US), so France isn't a poster-boy for a sane hate-crimes legislative environment either.

Anyway, I tried to debate with you rationally, without resorting to ad homs for once, and all I got in return was derision and insults. So I guess I won't bother in future.

Whatever.  reply or not.  I respond to arguments, not posters, so if you don't like an argument of mine, feel free to ignore it.  I will do the same, as always.

[alfred russel]

Was avoiding this thread for a little while to avoid the responses, but I'll bite on Ank and Berk's responses: how is vetting sexual assault not incitement to violence? He's pretty clearly implying that you'd be fulfilling a college girl's fantasy by raping her. I realize it's Wiki, but still...

I'm not for pulling a distasteful speech (otherwise, I'd be screaming for the heads of most of the shock jockeys and their ilk), but I'm wondering why we're not enforcing our own recognized limitations to free speech in extreme cases such as that, and thinking out loud as to what would be more effective with less legal grey area.

Repeating, in my example, a crime would still have to be committed to pull the license, although I guess the realist side of me sees how the system would be abused and thus break.

With the caveat that it was pulled from wikipedia and may not be accurate:

An incitement to violence: "People should go rape the college girls who are volunteering."

An incredibly offensive statement that would cause any self respecting radio station to pull his show, but still doesn't incite violence: "College girls can get raped by homeless people for all I care, I think that possibility is why they are volunteering."

[garbon]

I respond to arguments, not posters, so if you don't like an argument of mine, feel free to ignore it.  I will do the same, as always.

I've always found this rather odd. Would you say that when you have a face to face conversation with someone, that you don't respond to them but just what they've said?

[MadImmortalMan]

I think the point is that if he's inciting violence, then you can just go arrest him right now. There's no need for any of this controlling speech through FCC licensing stuff.

[grumbler]

I respond to arguments, not posters, so if you don't like an argument of mine, feel free to ignore it.  I will do the same, as always.

I've always found this rather odd. Would you say that when you have a face to face conversation with someone, that you don't respond to them but just what they've said?

I have sat down and talked to languishites face to face, and they will tell you that I respond to their comments, not to their personas.  I don't call Seedy that to his face, and he doesn't call me grumbler.

Of course, people talk about different things face to face.  Seedy and I probably have never exchanged the phrase "dazzling urbanites" once in all the times we have talked.

When I tlk to my relatives, i respond to what they say.  I don't respond "you are just saying that because you are my brother!"

All that may be odd to you, but your comment is odd to me as well.

Note that I do play along with the Languish memes, but not as part of a discussion.

[derspiess]

Yeah, but wouldn't you stand to gain?  Anyway your God-King left office in January.

Hmm, where was the Bush-worshiping?

[Razgovory]

Yeah, but wouldn't you stand to gain?  Anyway your God-King left office in January.

Hmm, where was the Bush-worshiping?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxdt_f0hwUg

[DontSayBanana]

With the caveat that it was pulled from wikipedia and may not be accurate:

An incitement to violence: "People should go rape the college girls who are volunteering."

An incredibly offensive statement that would cause any self respecting radio station to pull his show, but still doesn't incite violence: "College girls can get raped by homeless people for all I care, I think that possibility is why they are volunteering."

Caveat noted. Abandoning this now; mostly was trying to defend an untenable position for shits and giggles.

[garbon]

Call a spade a spade; that's trolling.

[saskganesh]

Call a spade a spade; that's trolling.

the metaphor predates racisssm. Plutarch must have been a scandinavian humanoid then.

[Martinus]

The right has its own track record that is anti-freedom of speech and anti-freedom of expression, though it manifests differently, for example by trying to ban books from public libraries or schools, or restricting the content showed on TV (remember the ridiculous breast furore of few years ago?)

The way I see it, the stuff the likes of Michael Savage spout is to political discourse what hard pornography is to artistic expression - it has no purpose other than to incite and excite senses, and that is why it sells so well. Now, I do not try to argue either should be banned, but I fail to see how the same kinds of restrictions shouldn't apply to both. After all, political hatred of the type Michael Savage spreads can be as damaging (if not more) to a young person's psyche as hardcore porn.

A normal, well-adjusted adult would probably not go and murder gays, after listening to Michael Savage (which is why it is not incitement to violence, strictly speaking) but a young impressionable person may want to go out and make sure the homosexual menace does not spread after listening to this bullshit.