:D Good for the UK. I wonder how they came up with Savage as one of the 22 most undesirable individuals, though.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/05/05/uk.ban.list/index.html
QuoteLONDON, England (CNN) -- White supremacists, Islamic clerics, a controversial Kansas pastor and a U.S. talk show host are on a list of 22 people banned from Britain for "stirring up hatred," the British government said Tuesday.
Jacqui Smith said she did not hesitate to name and shame those who foster extremist views.
Britain's Home Office said it decided to exclude the 22 in the last several months. That decision follows measures introduced by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith last year against people "who have engaged in spreading hate," the Home Office said.
The Home Office named only 16 of those on the list; it said it was not in the public interest to disclose the names of the other six. A spokeswoman declined to elaborate on why the Home Office would not publicly identify six of the 22.
One of the most recognized names on the list may be U.S. radio talk show host Michael Savage, who is listed under his real name, Michael Alan Wiener. The conservative's daily show can be heard nationwide in the United States.
Huh? What is this censorship crap?
Michael Savage is a nut, or at least he was back when I used to listen to him many years ago.
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2009, 10:02:41 AM
Huh? What is this censorship crap?
Michael Savage is a nut, or at least he was back when I used to listen to him many years ago.
I'm not for censorship, but then keeping a noncitizen from entering isn't really censorship.
Michael Savage is a nut, or at least plays one on his show (I've only listened a couple times, so maybe a regular listener could weigh in).
Wow, that is just stupid.
Savage is a typical radio blow hard, but the idea that a democracy would ban him from visiting for saying things they don't like is rather lame. But hey, it is their country.
Quote from: Berkut on May 05, 2009, 10:27:02 AM
Wow, that is just stupid.
Savage is a typical radio blow hard, but the idea that a democracy would ban him from visiting for saying things they don't like is rather lame. But hey, it is their country.
What about Fred Phelps?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 05, 2009, 10:25:34 AM
I'm not for censorship, but then keeping a noncitizen from entering isn't really censorship.
Michael Savage is a nut, or at least plays one on his show (I've only listened a couple times, so maybe a regular listener could weigh in).
Well I guess banning him from visiting is not the same as censoring what he has to say, and being able to visit other countries is certainly not a human right. I just do not particularly like it.
The problem is that it increasingly is not our country :(
It belongs to a group of Labour party apparatchiks. Roll on 2010.
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2009, 10:30:39 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 05, 2009, 10:25:34 AM
I'm not for censorship, but then keeping a noncitizen from entering isn't really censorship.
Michael Savage is a nut, or at least plays one on his show (I've only listened a couple times, so maybe a regular listener could weigh in).
Well I guess banning him from visiting is not the same as censoring what he has to say, and being able to visit other countries is certainly not a human right. I just do not particularly like it.
I feel the same way. It seems to be all the rage these days, but to me it appears petty and small to have bureaucrats deciding on the basis of what people say whether to let them in the country.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 05, 2009, 10:01:00 AM
Quote
Michael Savage, who is listed under his real name, Michael Alan Wiener
:lmfao: The sheer shame should keep him out.
Quote from: Brazen on May 05, 2009, 10:34:53 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 05, 2009, 10:01:00 AM
Quote
Michael Savage, who is listed under his real name, Michael Alan Wiener
:lmfao: The sheer shame should keep him out.
What? "Wiener" is a term of great respect in the U.S. Is it not the same in the UK???
:P
That seems very random. Was he even planning to go to the UK?
A few controversies with Savage, at least as reported by Wikipedia; which hardly make this guy sound like typical right wing radio or much of a posterboy for free speech considering all the lawsuits:
QuoteCritics 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]
QuoteDispute With CAIR
In early November 2007, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has called on radio listeners to contact companies that advertise on Savage's program to express their concerns about what they deemed as anti-Muslim bigotry. Savage was quoted as saying, Muslims, "need deportation"; and that adherents of Islam would do well to "take your religion and shove it up your behind" because "I'm sick of you."[45] On his show and website, Savage has countered that CAIR is linked to terrorist organizations, and was an "unindicted co-conspirator in an anti-terrorist trial". On November 8, 2007, following a campaign by CAIR meant to get Savage off the air by going after his sponsors, Citrix Systems, Inc. pulled its advertisements from his show.[46] On November 15, OfficeMax followed suit.[47] TrustedID also dropped their sponsorship of The Savage Nation, according to their CEO this was also due to lack of sales.[48]
Savage sued CAIR for its use, on its website, of excerpts from his show. Savage's lawsuit alleges copyright infringement by CAIR. [49] The suit alleged that CAIR's "repackaging" of Savage's comments was "deliberately designed to obscure the specific message conveyed by Michael Savage". The excerpts included Savage's characterization of the Qur'an as "a throwback document" and a "book of hate". CAIR called the suit "bizarre, sloppy and baseless".[50] On July 25, 2008, the United States district court dismissed Savage's suit against CAIR, holding that the posting of the audio clip was protected under the First Amendment free-speech doctrine of fair use as it was used to "comment on and rebut derogatory statements regarding their organization and their religious affiliations."[51] The court gave Savage the opportunity to file an amended complaint if he wanted to try to cure the defects in his suit. On August 14, 2008, however, Savage's lawyer announced that Savage would not file an amended complaint and would drop the case.[52][53] CAIR then sought attorneys fees against Savage but U.S. District Court judge Susan Illston denied that request. [54]
QuoteFrom the very beginning of his stint at MSNBC, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) urged the show's sponsors to stop advertising on the show. Savage did not sue GLAAD, but Talk Radio Network Inc. (TRN), which syndicated his radio show, did sue the owners of three small noncommercial websites that had criticized Savage and endorsed the call for advertisers to withdraw their support for the show: savagestupidity.com, michaelsavagesucks.com, and takebackthemedia.com. The suit alleged that the defendants had caused Savage financial damage by interfering with his relationship with advertisers, had used material from The Michael Savage Show without permission, and had spread "false and malicious" information about Savage.[17] The suit was brought in Illinois, the location of Culligan, a company that stopped advertising with TRN.[18] Public Citizen undertook the legal defense of the owners of savagestupidity.com.[19] Savage also contended before the National Arbitration Forum that the "savagestupidity.com" and "michaelsavagesucks.com" domain names were "confusingly similar" to his own "michaelsavage.com", and that he should be given those domain names.[20] Several months after filing the lawsuit, TRN withdrew it without obtaining any concessions from the defendants.[21] The National Arbitration Forum ruled against Savage's claim.[22]
Four months later, on July 7, Savage was fired from his MSNBC television show after remarks made in response to a caller, later identified as prank caller Bob Foster, who insulted Savage's teeth. Savage then asked if Foster was a "sodomite", to which the caller answered, "Yes." Savage then said to the caller, "Oh, so you're one of those sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig; how's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig? You got nothing better to do than to put me down, you piece of garbage? You got nothing to do today? Go eat a sausage, and choke on it. Get trichinosis. Now do we have another nice caller here who's busy because he didn't have a nice night in the bathhouse who's angry at me today? Put another, put another sodomite on....no more calls?...I don't care about these bums; they mean nothing to me. They're all sausages." [23]
The day after being fired, Savage apologized on his radio program and on his website. He explained that he believed that MSNBC had gone to commercial to cover the gaffe of the attempted sabotage by a prank caller and that he was off the air at the time of the offensive comments. He also said his remarks were meant only to insult the caller, not all people with AIDS.[24]
Quote from: alfred russel on May 05, 2009, 10:47:53 AM
A few controversies with Savage, at least as reported by Wikipedia; which hardly make this guy sound like typical right wing radio or much of a posterboy for free speech considering all the lawsuits:
Yeah I heard some pretty ridiculously over the top racist and bigoted shit on his program. He makes Neil's persona look tolerant.
But like Neil I think he just does it for the shock value. That is his job as a shock jock after all.
Probably just needed to fill up the non Muslim quota on the ban list.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on May 05, 2009, 11:01:15 AM
Probably just needed to fill up the non Muslim quota on the ban list.
My thoughts exactly.
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2009, 10:56:26 AM
Yeah I heard some pretty ridiculously over the top racist and bigoted shit on his program. He makes Neil's persona look tolerant.
But like Neil I think he just does it for the shock value. That is his job as a shock jock after all.
I don't disagree, but then what standard are you going to apply? White people saying these things don't mean them and can come, while islamic people saying them can't?
Anyway, I'm sure Michael Savage is thrilled at being banned from the UK, and will probably be ranting and raving about it all week with great ratings.
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2009, 10:02:41 AM
Huh? What is this censorship crap?
How is this censorship?
That said, Jacqui Smith is the biggest embarrassment in the history of the Home Office.
This sort of things been going for ages. As I mentioned in the Phelps' thread Farrakhan's been banned from the UK since Willie Whitelaw was Home Secretary.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 05, 2009, 11:07:36 AM
Anyway, I'm sure Michael Savage is thrilled at being banned from the UK, and will probably be ranting and raving about it all week with great ratings.
This could single-handedly save his failing show.
Quote from: Neil on May 05, 2009, 11:37:21 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2009, 10:02:41 AM
Huh? What is this censorship crap?
How is this censorship?
That said, Jacqui Smith is the biggest embarrassment in the history of the Home Office.
I know. Ocean's Eleven. :bleeding:
Anyway, does it mean Neil is going to be banned from coming to the next Languish meet in the UK? :D
He is a hate-speaker, perhaps I should report him to Jacqui Smith, CdM too.........
Hell, half the people on Britain's least-wanted list could be Languishites, then we would get loads of new blood on the forum because of all the fame :w00t:
This Wiener chap is going to sue the Home Office :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1177428/Talk-host-sue-Home-Office-link-Neo-Nazis-Muslim-preachers-hate-list-16-banned-Britain.html
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 05, 2009, 02:48:23 PM
This sort of things been going for ages. As I mentioned in the Phelps' thread Farrakhan's been banned from the UK since Willie Whitelaw was Home Secretary.
I wish that we could ban Farrakhan from the US...
:cry:
Quote from: alfred russel on May 05, 2009, 10:01:00 AM
:D Good for the UK. I wonder how they came up with Savage as one of the 22 most undesirable individuals, though.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/05/05/uk.ban.list/index.html
QuoteLONDON, England (CNN) -- White supremacists, Islamic clerics, a controversial Kansas pastor and a U.S. talk show host are on a list of 22 people banned from Britain for "stirring up hatred," the British government said Tuesday.
Jacqui Smith said she did not hesitate to name and shame those who foster extremist views.
Britain's Home Office said it decided to exclude the 22 in the last several months. That decision follows measures introduced by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith last year against people "who have engaged in spreading hate," the Home Office said.
The Home Office named only 16 of those on the list; it said it was not in the public interest to disclose the names of the other six. A spokeswoman declined to elaborate on why the Home Office would not publicly identify six of the 22.
One of the most recognized names on the list may be U.S. radio talk show host Michael Savage, who is listed under his real name, Michael Alan Wiener. The conservative's daily show can be heard nationwide in the United States.
They've been doing that lately. The Dutch politician behind 'Fitna' was also banned, and it was a PR disaster.
PCism run amuck. Free speech means exactly that, right up until someone calls for murder or treason.
QuoteJacqui Smith said she did not hesitate to name and shame those who foster extremist views.
QuoteA spokeswoman declined to elaborate on why the Home Office would not publicly identify six of the 22.
Yet more posturing from the worst Home Secretary in the history of the United Kingdom.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 05, 2009, 05:13:58 PM
Free speech means exactly that, right up until someone calls for murder or treason.
How horrible. :o :rolleyes:
Free speech is great up until someone yells "MOVIE!" in a crowded firehouse.
Quote from: PDH on May 05, 2009, 06:50:45 PM
Free speech is great up until someone yells "MOVIE!" in a crowded firehouse.
I've done that, doesn't work :(
Quote from: katmai on May 05, 2009, 06:54:30 PM
I've done that, doesn't work :(
What kinda movie? :perv:
Quote from: katmai on May 05, 2009, 06:54:30 PM
I've done that, doesn't work :(
That is because you are a guero...If you were a proper south of the border type the cops would have been there with the tasers and zip-ties. In Oakland, they would have shot you.
Question: Does Michael Savage hate Mexicans?
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 05, 2009, 09:37:01 PM
Question: Does Michael Savage hate Mexicans?
Here is what wikiquote has for Michael Savage's immigration comments:
QuoteImmigration
* Then there's the story of college students who are fasting out here in the Bay Area. They're illegal aliens and they want green cards simply because they're students. I don't understand what -- how this two and two adds up. I would say, let them fast until they starve to death, then that solves the problem. Because then we won't have a problem about giving them green cards because they're illegal aliens; they don't belong here to begin with. They broke into the country; they're criminals. Why do I owe them a green card? Because they're going to my colleges for free?
o July 5, 2007
* My ancestors fled here because they wanted to become American. They wanted to imitate and ape the white man, while retaining some of their background. They didn't want to impose their background upon the society, like so many immigrants do today, thinking that they have a right to impose their fetid societies upon us, the very stinkpots that they ran from. The very cesspools that they ran from, they think are suddenly noble because they ran away from it? They glorify the hellhole they ran from? Let 'em go back there!
o September 14, 2006
* ...when you bring immigrants in from Europe -- whether they be Irish, whether they be Italian, whether they be English, whether they be Romanian, whether they be Czechoslovakian, whether they be Yugoslavian, whether they be German -- they're from Europe, and there is a melting pot possibility...When you start bringing in masses of immigrants from everywhere on Earth, you don't have a melting pot; they cannot be melted into an American, and that's what's going on in the country today. We're bringing in millions of people from countries that have no compatibility with the values of Europe, not any values whatsoever. And I will argue with you as long as you want on this, if you want. There was no history of the liberation of people in China for example, to choose one nation, there was no Magna Carta, there was no evolution. There's been no Middle Ages for the Muslims coming into America.
o October 13, 2006
* It's insanity to be bringing in millions of people who have no Middle Ages yet, they haven't even gone through the Middle Ages. They're never going to be compatible with America. They're never going to assimilate. This is the biggest disaster in the history of this country, is to say that all people from around the world are the same; ipso facto, bring in anybody and they're all going to become an American within two generations. That's absurd. But they know that. They don't want them to become assimilated. What they want is a balkanization of America where one group is pitted against another perennially. And the ruling class also wants an illiterate America who does not fully understand what they're doing to this country. That's why they are bringing people that will never assimilate. They don't even require that they speak English.
o October 13, 2006
* What will it take to wake you up to the fact that you are being erased from the future of America? And why are you being erased? If you're a person of European descent, why do they want your child to be a minority in America? And when your little girl is a minority in America, what will happen to her? Tell me what will happen to her? Do you think that the minorities, when they take over the country, will be quite as benevolent and as enlightened as the European-Americans are today? Or do you sense that just perhaps, just maybe, they will not bring the learnings of the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, to their new power?
o May 10, 2006
* Unless we say 'No' to illegal aliens waving the Mexican flag in the street, by burning the Mexican flag in the street across America. That's right, burn the Mexican flag on your street corner, show what you care about, show that you won't take it anymore, show that you're sick of everybody pushing us around like we are a pitiful, helpless giant of a nation that is out of control because we have nothing but corruption and rot at the highest level. Do that, burn a Mexican flag for America, burn a Mexican flag for those who died that you should have a nationality and a sovereignty, go out in the street and show you're a man, burn 10 Mexican flags if I could recommend it. Put one in the window upside down and tell them to go back where they came from, and if that's a little to xenophobic for you, ask yourself why the xenophobes from Mexico wave their flag in your country. Ask yourself why the racist xenophobes of La Raza will not speak English in this country; you'll find out what racism and xenophobia is, my friend.
o March 27, 2006
* If you study the history of human evolution, and I realize this is quite a jump, you will see that throughout history there were various species that arrived on planet Earth prior to homo sapiens, current man, modern man. And as one group came along, it displaced the previous group. We, the people, are being displaced by the people of Mexico. This is an invasion by any other name. Everybody with a brain understands that. Everybody who understands reality understands we are being pushed out of our own country.
o March 27, 2006
* Twenty-nine percent of all inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens. No, Mr. Bush, they do not all come here to work, they do not all come here to work. They come here to work the system, sell drugs, rape, and kill on contract. Don't lie to us.
o March 27, 2006
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 05, 2009, 04:38:25 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 05, 2009, 11:07:36 AM
Anyway, I'm sure Michael Savage is thrilled at being banned from the UK, and will probably be ranting and raving about it all week with great ratings.
This could single-handedly save his failing show.
Is it failing? All the information I'm getting is off wikipedia, but it says his show has the fourth highest number of listeners in the US.
I'm reading the rest of the wikiquote stuff, and assuming it isn't made up, this stuff is unbelievable. I'll quote it for your amusement:
QuoteIslam and The War on Terror
In the Muslim world they say, 'Oh, there's a billion of them.' I said, 'So, kill 100 million of them!'
* I'm going to take it to the Supreme Court until eventually I force CAIR to describe who their funding sources are.
o [1]
* You know, when I see a woman walking around with a burqa, I see a Nazi. That's what I see, how-do-you-like-that? A hateful Nazi who would like to cut your throat and kill your children. Don't give me this crap that they're doing it out of a sacred ritual or rite. It's not required by the Quran that a woman walk around in a seventh-century drape. She's doing it to spit in your face. She's saying, 'You white moron, you, I'm going to kill you if I can.' That's how I see it! What do you want me to do, mince words with you? I'm not going to mince words. We're too far gone in this country.
o July 3, 2007
* The Islamists smell weakness in the West and are attacking us on several fronts at once: one, through outright war; two, through immigration; three, through their propaganda disseminated through the liberal media and four, through the liberal courts. Only a devastating military blow against the hearts of Islamic terror coupled with an outright ban on Muslim immigration, laws making the dissemination of enemy propaganda illegal, and the uncoupling of the liberal ACLU can save the United States. I would also make the construction of mosques illegal in America and the speaking of English only in the streets of the United States the law.
o November 27, 2006
* But when it comes to the war, they [the Bush administration] mismanaged this thing, not from the war perspective, but from the pacification -- they've gone too mild, and they thought that the people are our friends, but what they don't know is when you're dealing with Arabs, there are no friends. They're old rug traders going back a thousand years in that part of the world. Right now, one side is your friend; the other side is your enemy. The next day, they're both stabbing you in the back and picking your pockets. But I guess they don't teach you that at Yale. They teach you that all cultures have something to offer the world.
o -October 20, 2007 ??
* And these are intelligent people, wealthy people. They are very depressed by the weakness that America is showing to these psychotics in the Muslim world. They say, 'Oh, there's a billion of them.' I said, 'So, kill 100 million of them, then there'll be 900 million of them.' I mean, would you rather die -- would you rather us die than them? I mean, what is it going to take for you people to wake up? Would you rather we disappear or we die? Or would you rather they disappear and they die? Because you're going to have to make that choice sooner rather than later.
o -April 17, 2006
* Right now, even people sitting on the fence would like George Bush to drop a nuclear weapon on an Arab country. They don't even care which one it would be. I can guarantee you -- I don't need to go to Mr. Schmuck [pollster John] Zogby and ask him his opinion. I don't need anyone's opinion. I'll give you my opinion, because I got a better stethoscope than those fools. It's one man's opinion based upon my own analysis. The most -- I tell you right now -- the largest percentage of Americans would like to see a nuclear weapon dropped on a major Arab capital. They don't even care which one. They'd like an indiscriminate use of a nuclear weapon. They want this over with. One thing people cannot live with, which is an undefined, limitless conflict, which is what we have now. They can't take it. They want this war over with, and they want it ended like the war against Japan. They'd like Big Boy dropped on one of the little cities over there. They don't care where. They don't care any more. The American people have had it up to here with this garbage.
o -May 12, 2004
* In fact, Christianity has been one of the great salvations on planet Earth. It's what's necessary in the Middle East. Others have written about it, I think these people need to be forcibly converted to Christianity but I'll get here a little later, I'll move up to that. It's the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings.
* -May 12, 2004
* The white male is like the stingray : You keep hunting him down, you're going to wind up with a barb in your chest (said 12 days after Steve Irwin was killed by a stingray in this manner). They haven't seen the white male. They don't understand the white male dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. They don't remember what the white male is capable of because he's been awfully subdued for a long period of time. But if push comes to shove, I can guarantee you all the turbanned folks are going to find out all over again just how vicious the white male can really be. They keep provoking this nation, they're going to wind up with a mushroom cloud over their country. As sure as I'm sitting here, Tehran will be 55,000 degrees and rising one morning, and we won't have to put up with that Hitler anymore.
* -September 14, 2006
* The Democrats are the real Nazis, but we need to do the same thing to Muslims that the good Germans did to the Christ-killers!
* -February 25, 2009
[edit] Multiculturalism
* Multiculturalism has completely failed America. It is a disaster, an unmitigated disaster. Multiculturalism -- as a premise that all cultures are equal and all cultures have an equal amount to contribute to the world -- that's utter hogwash! The reason my ancestors came to this country as immigrants, and the reason your immigrants -- ancestors came to this country as immigrants is because of the great enterprise created by white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants. It is the greatest country ever created in the word. It is built upon the best --the best of the white, Anglo-Saxon world.
o September 14, 2006
[edit] Terri Schiavo
* "The radical Democratic left is an army of soulless ghouls. Being of the living dead, they live in a world of death and try to impose it on we the living. Witness who led the charge: a radical homosexual, Barney Frank. A radical abortion Mafiosa, Barbara Boxer. What is difficult for we the living to comprehend is the reason they can engage in such anti-life abominations is because they have no souls. They have said that the tears of Terri Schiavo are mechanical. They have said that her smile is reflexive. They can rip an emerging child from the womb, murder it, and call this a compassionate act. Like Mengele -- the doctor of death from the Nazi concentration camps -- the radical, soulless Democrats keep referring to "the doctors," as if a medical degree guaranteed humanity. Therefore, choose life. God bless George W. Bush."
[edit] The Democrats
* That's why the Democrats want people to be able to vote without any ID whatsoever. That's why the Democrats want people to vote who aren't even citizens, because they're not counting on an America that speaks English in the near future. They're not counting on an America that has a citizenship requirement in the near future. My fear is that if the Democrats win, and I'm afraid that they might, you're going to see America melt down faster that you could ever imagine.
o October 13, 2006
* You know something; I'm voting for Bush, I just made up my mind. There's nothing in this for me. I'm a white male, I'm a white, male, married heterosexual -- I don't want the Democrats. Everywhere I turn, there's another hot coal in my eye. For example, today's DNC calendar of public events included lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender meeting, the disability meeting, the ethnic meeting, the American Indian meeting, the Asian/Pacific Islander meeting, the Hispanic meeting, and the African American meeting -- God bless 'em, they're entitled to their meeting, I'm entitled to my vote, they're not my party, end of story. And that's it. I'm not voting for a party of ethnic minorities and women and immigrants. I will not do it. And if I thought for a moment that they had changed their direction, if I thought for a moment there was a new Democrat Party that was more centrist and more focused on the real issues of today, I would have considered, well, maybe sitting the election out, or voting for Kerry -- no, I'm not.
o July 28, 2004
[edit] His Presidential Bid
* "I can guarantee you [liberals], you wouldn't be in business too long. I can guarantee you you'd be arrested for sedition within six months of my taking power. I'd have you people licking lead paint, what you did to this country."
[edit] Jews
* "Now, let's go a step further. I have a bill in my hand; a one dollar bill. It says "In God We Trust." That's next from the verminous Brooklyn College lawyers, isn't it? Go down South and have a 'tee-hee' over the goyim. Laugh at the goyim. Go down there and take away the crosses and they can't touch you, huh, Mr. Cohen? Hee-hee-hee. Mr. Cohen? And you wonder where anti-Semitism comes from. Let me strip the mask off of it for you today because if you think I'm going to mince words, you are mistaken. It comes from situations like this- when you have a New York Jew like Cohen going down South into the heartland of Christianity and stealing the religious symbols from Christians. You are not going to hear it anywhere else. It's so shocking, you don't even believe you just heard it. No one in the media has the guts to say what needs to be said. They're all going to make this a dancing on the head of the pin argument. They're all going to make it a little legal argument, and go onto to the next thing and sell you a piece of garbage on their television or radio show, but let me tell you something, there's a lot more at stake than a radio show. The future of this nation is at stake today. And I am not going to sit on the sidelines and have a little gentlemanly conversation. I said it like it is."
o November 13, 2003 Savage Nation Radio Broadcast)
[edit] Liberals
* "I certainly don't underestimate the Red Diaper Doper Baby, either. The Red Diaper Doper Baby- although pot-ed out, although deviant- is very, very smart with more power than you can imagine. They run every image in this country. Every image that comes out of Hollywood, Red Diaper Doper Baby driven. Every image that comes out of a New York newsroom, Red Diaper Doper Baby written. Every last one of them, Red Diaper Doper Baby, pull the switches on the images and the words that come out of Hollywood and New York. Don't for one minute think otherwise"
o - June 11, 2003. From his book, Savage Nation.
* "To fight only the al-Qaeda scum is to miss the terrorist network operating within our own borders... Who are these traitors? Every rotten radical left-winger in this country, that's who."
o From his book, Savage Nation, January, 2003.
* "If Wolf Blitzer, for example, got dressed up as a transvestite and sold his body outside the Holland Tunnel at night, I'd say: Wolf, I have more respect for you now then when you were wearing a suit and pretending to be an objective news man"
* "Do you notice what she [Barbara Walters] just did? She used this dictator in Venezuela [Hugo Chavez] as a forum, as a fulcrum, in order to call the president those names. Now, I don't like Bush's policies in most cases, but I would never call him those names. Notice what this double-talking slut just did, this mind-slut Barbara Walters. And I stick by those words. She's an empty mind-slut. She'd peddle anything for a ratings point."
[edit] Al Gore
* "We are all sitting here asking ourselves, was there lead in Al Gore's silver spoon, because of the obvious tilt across the river of sanity. He has definitely pulled his raft across the river of sanity, or he has taken the side of the enemy, there's no other explanation for what he has been doing."
o - The Savage Nation, May 12, 2003.
[edit] Homosexuality
* God bless Pope Benedict XVI for speaking out on the seminal issue of our time, which is the homosexual dance of death, and the homosexualization of the West. There is a direct correlation between the homosexualization of the media, the homosexual mafia that controls virtually everything that you read, everything that you see, everything that you hear, everything that you wear, and the behavior of our boys and girls and the fact that they will not have children, and they simply want to party until 3 a.m., and spend their money on designer items so they look good, and they have good abs, and good butts, and good lats, and good delts. After all, isn't a good ab better than a good son? Isn't a good butt better than a good daughter? I'll let you figure out how we have descended to a level below that of the apes, lower than the chimpanzee, my friend -- all a result of the demons who rule the media, and have ruled the media to the point of extinction.
o January 2, 2007
* "Well there's a big difference between fighting for civil rights, and fighting for homosexual marriage, you moron. It's a big difference for fighting for the equality of all men, despite their race, and fighting for perversion, you idiot! You think people are stupid?"
o - June 10, 2004. - The Savage Nation, May 24, 2004.
* "But the question is what's good enough for you? You wanna live in a country like this? Where a gang of liberal judges hijack any law they don't like? And hold you hostage to it? They make homosexual wedding the law of the land, when 90 percent of the American people find it repugnant! And sickening! And disgusting! And don't wanna accept it! And don't wanna live in a degenerate nation!"
o - The Savage Nation, June 10, 2004.
* "Gays bore the hell out of me. They're the least important members of our society."
o - in his radio broadcast, September, 2000.
* "Somehow I can't picture Martin Luther King Jr. marching in makeup and a miniskirt to hold a vigil at the state capital for the rights of drag queens"
o Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
* "Fred Phelps and the Westboro Patriot Church are true American patriots, fighting against the homosexualization of America."
o April 2, 2009
* "I choose to override my desires for men when they swell in me, waiting out the passions like a storm, below decks."
o Vital Signs (1983)
[edit] ACLU
* "...these big-mouthed, phony scum of the ACLU, who should be rounded up, arrested for sedition. Their property seized, and they should be put into Abu Ghraib prison as far as I'm concerned. That wouldn't be enough of what I'd like to see done to the ACLU. They're the worst vermin America has ever tolerated. The worst vermin in the history of America are the vermin in the ACLU."
o - June 19, 2004
[edit] Autism
* "... I'll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is. What do you mean they scream and they're silent? They don't have a father around to tell them, 'Don't act like a moron. You'll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don't sit there crying and screaming, idiot.'"
o - The Savage Nation, July 16, 2008
Wow. Yeah; Ank, if half this stuff is true, there's not a government in the world that protects that much slander, libel... and the "cherry on the top" (bottom) about autism really is incitement to hatred. It makes me want to track down Michael Savage and leave him as Michael Savaged. Morons like that get on a slippery slope of making people want lynch mobs to be an acceptable social norm once more.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 05, 2009, 11:29:13 PM
Wow. Yeah; Ank, if half this stuff is true, there's not a government in the world that protects that much slander, libel... and the "cherry on the top" (bottom) about autism really is incitement to hatred. It makes me want to track down Michael Savage and leave him as Michael Savaged. Morons like that get on a slippery slope of making people want lynch mobs to be an acceptable social norm once more.
At least the Fred Phelps quote at the bottom--I figured that would be reported elsewhere but I can't find it on another source, so I think it may be false or at least completely out of context. The autism quote seems to be real though.
Quote from: Berkut on May 05, 2009, 10:27:02 AM
Wow, that is just stupid.
Savage is a typical radio blow hard, but the idea that a democracy would ban him from visiting for saying things they don't like is rather lame. But hey, it is their country.
You mean, like banning cuban singer Silvio Rodriguez from visiting America?
That guy is a comunists and an enemy of the United States.
Quote* God bless Pope Benedict XVI for speaking out on the seminal issue of our time, which is the homosexual dance of death, and the homosexualization of the West. There is a direct correlation between the homosexualization of the media, the homosexual mafia that controls virtually everything that you read, everything that you see, everything that you hear, everything that you wear, and the behavior of our boys and girls and the fact that they will not have children, and they simply want to party until 3 a.m., and spend their money on designer items so they look good, and they have good abs, and good butts, and good lats, and good delts. After all, isn't a good ab better than a good son? Isn't a good butt better than a good daughter? I'll let you figure out how we have descended to a level below that of the apes, lower than the chimpanzee, my friend -- all a result of the demons who rule the media, and have ruled the media to the point of extinction.
o January 2, 2007
Uhm, last time I checked, most apes and chimpanzees care about breeding, but hardly any of them care about having good bodies and wearing designer clothes. Consequently, it's the breeders who behave like apes, not us. Other than that the guy is spot on - of course his speech is tainted with desperation, because he realizes he is losing the cultural war, as the world inexorably marches on towards the Homotopia (tm) to the sound of ABBA and Pet Shop Boys. Mwhahah. Mwhahahahahahaha. :menace:
Quote from: Siege on May 06, 2009, 12:58:42 AM
That guy is a comunists and an enemy of the United States.
In other words, you agree with banning him because he could say things you don't like.
Quote from: Alatriste on May 06, 2009, 01:06:49 AM
Quote from: Siege on May 06, 2009, 12:58:42 AM
That guy is a comunists and an enemy of the United States.
In other words, you agree with banning him because he could say things you don't like.
But all Guevara's supporters deserve Guevara's ending.
So Savage/Wiener is a foul-mouthed idiot?
Just like half the UK's population then, nobody would even notice his presence :D
Quote from: Alatriste on May 06, 2009, 12:56:58 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 05, 2009, 10:27:02 AM
Wow, that is just stupid.
Savage is a typical radio blow hard, but the idea that a democracy would ban him from visiting for saying things they don't like is rather lame. But hey, it is their country.
You mean, like banning cuban singer Silvio Rodriguez from visiting America?
Yeah it's funny. I'm pretty sure the US would welcome an inflammatory islamist cleric, who is not a citizen of the US, with open arms as well.
Who's that Savage guy?
Quote from: derspiess on May 05, 2009, 10:42:09 AM
Quote from: Brazen on May 05, 2009, 10:34:53 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 05, 2009, 10:01:00 AM
Quote
Michael Savage, who is listed under his real name, Michael Alan Wiener
:lmfao: The sheer shame should keep him out.
What? "Wiener" is a term of great respect in the U.S. Is it not the same in the UK???
We don't use exactly the same term, but by the time we've called someone a "processed meat product with added flavouring, colouring and sulphites" they've usually left the room.
from what I saw where the guidelines used to ban people from entering the UK I fear that the UK would have no choice but to ban half its muslim population from entering, as well as a significant portion of its native population.
Quote from: Martinus on May 06, 2009, 01:03:45 AM
Uhm, last time I checked, most apes and chimpanzees care about breeding, but hardly any of them care about having good bodies and wearing designer clothes. Consequently, it's the breeders who behave like apes, not us. Other than that the guy is spot on - of course his speech is tainted with desperation, because he realizes he is losing the cultural war, as the world inexorably marches on towards the Homotopia (tm) to the sound of ABBA and Pet Shop Boys. Mwhahah. Mwhahahahahahaha. :menace:
Isn't that a pyrrhic victory, given that a West that has fallen to gays will be overrun and destroyed by other, more civilized peoples?
Quote from: Martinus on May 06, 2009, 01:03:45 AM
Uhm, last time I checked, most apes and chimpanzees care about breeding, but hardly any of them care about having good bodies and wearing designer clothes. Consequently, it's the breeders who behave like apes, not us. Other than that the guy is spot on - of course his speech is tainted with desperation, because he realizes he is losing the cultural war, as the world inexorably marches on towards the Homotopia (tm) to the sound of ABBA and Pet Shop Boys. Mwhahah. Mwhahahahahahaha. :menace:
Um the dude talks that way about everybody. You homos aren't special.
Quote from: Alatriste on May 06, 2009, 12:56:58 AM
You mean, like banning cuban singer Silvio Rodriguez from visiting America?
Got a cite for the "banning?" As far as my research tells me, he was not banned; he simply didn't get the visa approved in time for his trip.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 05, 2009, 10:29:08 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 05, 2009, 10:27:02 AM
Wow, that is just stupid.
Savage is a typical radio blow hard, but the idea that a democracy would ban him from visiting for saying things they don't like is rather lame. But hey, it is their country.
What about Fred Phelps?
He's banned as well. I saw a list of the banned folks in the paper today, and the majority of them were Muslims who
called for jihad or called the Jews monkeys. The non-Muslims appear (at least to me) to have been included just so the
UK government could deflect claims that they were only banning Muslims. Two of them were Russian nationalist murders
who have been in a Russian prison since 2007, and are NOT coming to visit Britain any time in the forseeable future.
Other non-Muslims who made the list was Don Black, former KKK and founder of Stormfront, and a Kahanite talking head.
That's only the list since October last year. I believe there's a further 13 on the list since March. The government say they've released it to show what sort of people they're banning.
I wish the British government would give us a handy rule of thumb to distinguish between incitement to violence and being critical of others.
Well, I'd be surprised if Savage has actually ever incited anyone to violence, but I do see the political value in using him as a lightning rod on this. (Though I fail to see why such a list needed to be published at all.) It may backfire in the end, though. I mean, with the reputation for the UK and libel cases, is there any possible way the Home Office can win a case against him? And if they lose, what does that mean for the others on the list who are legitimate threats?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 07, 2009, 01:49:52 AM
Well, I'd be surprised if Savage has actually ever incited anyone to violence, but I do see the political value in using him as a lightning rod on this. (Though I fail to see why such a list needed to be published at all.) It may backfire in the end, though. I mean, with the reputation for the UK and libel cases, is there any possible way the Home Office can win a case against him? And if they lose, what does that mean for the others on the list who are legitimate threats?
Guys a fraud. He used to be hippy selling herbal medicine till he figured out he could make more money fooling a larger class of fools. I figured Marty would like considering rumors of a homosexual past.
QuoteTwenty-nine percent of all inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens. No, Mr. Bush, they do not all come here to work, they do not all come here to work. They come here to work the system, sell drugs, rape, and kill on contract. Don't lie to us.
Yes Michael there are many illegal aliens in federal prisons. That is in large part because illegal re-entry into the United States is a federal crime, punishable by a prison term. 68% of the illegal aliens in federal prisons are there on immigration offenses. When we catch an alien coming back into the country illegally -- even if he or she is entirely peaceful and trying to hold down a job -- we don't just throw him back. No we try to "teach him a lesson" by hosting him for taxpayer expense at our wonderful federal prison facilities. We do this not because it makes much sense from a policy perspective, but because harried members of Congress are trying to placate morons like you and the nitwits who listen to your show.
Drug offences it is true takes up is also a pretty significant proportion of the illegal alien federal prison population. Then again, they make up a significant proportion of the citizen federal prison population. Of the total US federal prison population, over 50% of the prisoners are there on drug offenses. For illegal aliens the figure is 21%.
Needless to say illegal alien contract killers are not a big proportion of the US federal prison population. I don't have the exact numbers on this, but the total number ofillegal aliens incarcerated in federal prisons on ALL homicide charges was 13 (c end of 2003).
QuoteSavage introduced himself to certain writers in the North Beach area of San Francisco in the early 1970s.[9] He befriended and traveled with Beat poets Allen Ginsberg and Lawrence Ferlinghetti. Stephen Schwartz, also an acquaintance of Savage from this time, reported Savage possessed a photograph of himself and Ginsberg swimming naked in Hawaii and used the photograph as sort of a "calling card."[1][9] Savage maintained a correspondence with Ginsberg consisting of ten letters and a trio of postcards across four years, which is maintained with Ginsberg's papers at Stanford University.[1][10] One letter asked for Ginsberg and Ferlinghetti to come do a poetry reading, so others could "hear and see and know why I adore your public image."[6] One postcard mentions his desire to photograph Ginsberg in a provocative way, though Savage states that this correspondence is actually a forgery created by gay detractors.
fag
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 07, 2009, 10:08:16 AM
Needless to say illegal alien contract killers are not a big proportion of the US federal prison population. I don't have the exact numbers on this, but the total number ofillegal aliens incarcerated in federal prisons on ALL homicide charges was 13 (c end of 2003).
Generally speaking, homocide isn't a federal offense, so I would expect relatively few people to be serving time in a federal prison for homocide, so that stat doesn't really mean anything. Doesn't change the fact that Savage is an ass, but the fact that few illegal aliens are in the federal pen on homicide charges isn't the way to prove him wrong.
Quote from: dps on May 08, 2009, 10:06:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 07, 2009, 10:08:16 AM
Needless to say illegal alien contract killers are not a big proportion of the US federal prison population. I don't have the exact numbers on this, but the total number ofillegal aliens incarcerated in federal prisons on ALL homicide charges was 13 (c end of 2003).
Generally speaking, homocide isn't a federal offense, so I would expect relatively few people to be serving time in a federal prison for homocide, so that stat doesn't really mean anything. Doesn't change the fact that Savage is an ass, but the fact that few illegal aliens are in the federal pen on homicide charges isn't the way to prove him wrong.
2 Points.
1) I double checked with Bureau of Justice Statistics and 13 percent was the amount of illegal immigrants in the TOTAL US population (267,000 aliens incarcerated per 2,212,000 persons incarcerated).[1 (http://www.alipac.us/article1716.html)][2 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/p03.txt)]
2) Homicide is under dual sovereignty. Since it becomes federal jurisdiction when it involves crossing state borders, I would think murder linked to illegal immigration would immediately become a federal issue. [3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#United_States)]
EDIT: Thought I would include this as food for thought. In 2005, the GAO surveyed a group of approximately 55,000 incarcerated illegal aliens and found that homicide accounted for less than one percent of offenses for federal incarcerations, and approximately one percent of offenses for state and local incarcerations. [GAO-05-646R (http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05646r.html)]
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 09, 2009, 10:21:55 AM
2) Homicide is under dual sovereignty. Since it becomes federal jurisdiction when it involves crossing state borders, I would think murder linked to illegal immigration would immediately become a federal issue. [3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#United_States)]
Not really, that would be like shooting someone across a state line or kidnapping then murdering, that sort of thing. Not a garden variety "guy in CA kills guy in CA" murder.
Quote from: ulmont on May 09, 2009, 12:29:15 PM
Not really, that would be like shooting someone across a state line or kidnapping then murdering, that sort of thing. Not a garden variety "guy in CA kills guy in CA" murder.
True. The problem with the GAO survey is it lists the number of offenses; it doesn't seem to take multiple counts accrued, and considering that 3 times as many offenses were recorded in the federal system than the state and local, I'm wondering what the aggregate charges were that landed them in the federal system. Also, would a murder
during a border crossing be treated as a state offense in Texas or a federal offense?
Quote from: dps on May 08, 2009, 10:06:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 07, 2009, 10:08:16 AM
Needless to say illegal alien contract killers are not a big proportion of the US federal prison population. I don't have the exact numbers on this, but the total number ofillegal aliens incarcerated in federal prisons on ALL homicide charges was 13 (c end of 2003).
Generally speaking, homocide isn't a federal offense, so I would expect relatively few people to be serving time in a federal prison for homocide, so that stat doesn't really mean anything. Doesn't change the fact that Savage is an ass, but the fact that few illegal aliens are in the federal pen on homicide charges isn't the way to prove him wrong.
That's homophobic. :mad:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 07, 2009, 01:49:52 AM
Well, I'd be surprised if Savage has actually ever incited anyone to violence, but I do see the political value in using him as a lightning rod on this. (Though I fail to see why such a list needed to be published at all.) It may backfire in the end, though. I mean, with the reputation for the UK and libel cases, is there any possible way the Home Office can win a case against him? And if they lose, what does that mean for the others on the list who are legitimate threats?
I fail to see how his case would even be heard by the court. He is challenging an act of a sovereign government in a civil libel case. :unsure:
What's next? Osama suing the US government for libel, because they sent an arrest warrant after him, accusing him of crimes?
Boris weighs in from the torygraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/5304788/Michael-Savage-poses-no-risk-to-British-security-so-why-wont-MPs-say-so.html
Quote from: Boris Johnson
Michael Savage poses no risk to British security so why won't MPs say so?
It is shocking that not a single MP has stood up to defend free speech, says Boris Johnson.
By Boris Johnson
Last Updated: 1:05AM BST 11 May 2009
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Ftelegraph%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F01400%2Fmichael-savage_1400140c.jpg&hash=2ecf7436227eefb89169d99c392572af84a860bf)
About 10 years ago my brother-in-law was giving me a lift through the early morning Washington traffic when he suddenly gave a whoop of joy. "It's Howie!" yelled Ivo, turning up the radio. "We gotta listen to Howie!" And it was with mounting disbelief that I listened to the next 20 minutes of the Howard Stern show, a shameless and cynical attempt to scandalise the ear.
That morning Howard was appealing to his listeners to ring in with the most tear-jerking hard-luck story. In return he was offering a nude massage at the hands of an attractive nude masseuse. In a display of Oprah Winfreyesque exhibitionism, the audience was competing for that massage. We heard of divorces, and bereavements, and embarrassing disfigurements. But the winner (I advise sensitive readers to faint now) was a man who rang in to say that he had just been diagnosed with cancer, and might lose his gonads, but had not yet had the courage to tell his girlfriend.
Howard Stern pounced. "What's her number?" he said. With lightning efficiency his producers patched the caller through to his girlfriend, and soon she was being told – live on air – that there was good news and bad news.
The bad news was that her boyfriend had cancer, and the good news was that he was the winner of a nude massage. The poor woman gasped and sobbed. I sat there in exactly the state desired by the producers of the Howard Stern show – appalled, disgusted, but also thrilled by the horror of what was apparently (and I stress apparently) taking place on the radio.
We just don't have shows like this in Britain, I said to Ivo. That's right, he said, and he told me about the shock jocks. He explained the tactics of men such as Stern and Rush Limbaugh, how they shamelessly chased after ratings by causing outrage, how they goosed the secret prejudices of their listeners. Some people tuned in because they actually agreed with what was being said. Most people just enjoyed the theatre, the vehemence, the provocation.
These shock jocks were national institutions, with millions of weekly listeners. They were a new and important part of the American constitution, and that is my first objection to the utterly demented decision by Jacqui Smith's Home Office to announce that Michael Savage, America's third most popular radio show host, is banned from entering this country. It just makes us look so infantile, so pathetic.
Every day the American airwaves are churned by the paranoid rantings of Michael Savage and his kind. Has this stuff warped America, or deformed its political psyche? On the contrary, the Americans have just had the good sense to elect a supremely gifted and eloquent black man – when the prospect of a black British prime minister still seems some way off. What are we, some sort of kindergarten that needs to be protected against these dangerous American radio shows? Does Jacqui Smith think we are all dimwits, who can't tell when a man like Savage is talking rubbish? Why can America take it, and we can't?
The answer is that America still has a constitutional protection of free speech, and I have been amazed, over the last few days, to see how few people in this country are willing to stick up for that elementary principle. Across Fleet Street, swords have stuck in their scabbards, swords that normally leap to the defence of liberty.
I am not aware that a single MP has spoken on this subject, apart from David Winnick, who went on Newsnight to agree with Jacqui Smith. Harold Wilson once called Mr Winnick "the stupidest man in the House of Commons", a reputation he did nothing to shake with his performance. Mr Winnick said that Savage should be banned from this country for claiming that many children with autism were "brats". That is indeed an odious and ill-informed opinion. But surely it should be blindingly obvious even to David Winnick that it is possible to despise the things that Michael Savage says, and yet to think that it is very odd indeed to bar him from this country.
Such is the terror of being associated with Mr Savage's ugly ravings, that no one dares speak up for common sense and proportionality. To exclude someone from entering this country is a serious act of state. We have not been told how the decision was taken. We do not know which criteria were applied.
All we can say for certain is that there was no attempt to consult our elected representatives in the House of Commons, engrossed as they now are in defending their expenses, and it looks very much as though the list of banned persons was rushed out to cover up the hoo-ha over the Home Secretary's taxpayer-funded bath plug.
Michael Savage has said ignorant and unpleasant things about gay people, autism and Muslims. But it is far from clear that he would be in breach of any law, even in this country. The world is full of loudmouth media berks with views that we would all like to keep to themselves, but we can't ban them all from entering Britain.
Perhaps Jacqui Smith thinks that it "sends out a signal" about the kind of Britain we want. On the contrary, it reinforces a culture – created by this Labour Government, and its addiction to political correctness – where people are increasingly confused and panic-stricken about what they can say and what is forbidden, a culture where a police officer can seriously think he is right to arrest a protester for calling a police horse "gay". Our courts and tribunals are clogged with people claiming to have suffered insults of one kind or another, and a country once famous for free speech is now hysterically and expensively sensitive to anything that could be taken as a slight.
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. They will have found a boorish, excitable man who addresses his callers as "moron", who is much less gifted than Howard Stern and who is certainly no threat to this country.
I wish Boris were my mayor :(
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: saskganesh on May 11, 2009, 03:35:29 PM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 11, 2009, 03:47:25 PM
Much of Savage's own speech could be classified as "libel," so revoking his license for those offenses would not be unconstitutional.
Like what?
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.
Quote from: Martinus on May 11, 2009, 04:03:13 PM
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.
I don't think anybody is saying the UK doesn't have a legal right to bar anybody from entering their country they want.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 11, 2009, 03:47:25 PM
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.
If Savage is slandering people why don't they sue him or his parent company?
Quote from: Savonarola on May 11, 2009, 04:41:07 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 11, 2009, 03:47:25 PM
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.
If Savage is slandering people why don't they sue him or his parent company?
Why would a sovereign sue someone if it can simply exercise its power?
Quote from: Martinus on May 11, 2009, 04:48:54 PM
Why would a sovereign sue someone if it can simply exercise its power?
The conversation has moved on. They are talking about his on the air shenanigans in the United States now.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 11, 2009, 03:47:25 PM
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.
I'm not so sure that's a good idea. The lengths to which that logic can be stretched goes into all kinds of undesirableness. Imagine if Savage or someone like him wielded that same power.
Quote from: Martinus on May 11, 2009, 04:03:13 PM
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.
Fallacy of the false dilemma. There are more choices than simply allowing everyone in, and banning someone who has not even expressed a desire to enter the country, because some government politicians decide that such banning serves their interests.
The British government came out looking like morons. I wouldn't invite Savage to dinner, but I certainly am not going to go out of my way to publicise that fact. It is the publicity that stinks here, more than the act. Had the British government decided (for whatever bizarre reasons) that savage is a threat to the safety of Britain, and had simply noted to their consulates that they need not even consider a visa application, Britains would not have been exposed (as you know they were, out of pure curiousity) to the very thing that so grievously endangers them.
So, yes, some of us can criticise the UK government in the absence of governments who allow anyone to enter their countries (unless they break the law of the land) even if you lack the capacity to see how to do so yourself.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 11, 2009, 03:47:25 PM
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.
QuoteMuch 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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 11, 2009, 03:47:25 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on May 11, 2009, 03:35:29 PM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Martinus on May 11, 2009, 04:03:13 PM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2009, 02:49:05 PM
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:
QuoteHaving 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
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."
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 11, 2009, 09:12:51 PM
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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 11, 2009, 09:12:51 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 11, 2009, 09:12:51 PM
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?
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2009, 10:31:13 PM
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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 11, 2009, 03:47:25 PM
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?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 11, 2009, 07:42:19 PM
No you don't.
Yeah, I still do. Our guy is boring.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 11, 2009, 09:12:51 PM
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:
QuoteCritics 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.
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.
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2009, 03:53:08 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2009, 03:53:08 AM
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.
Actually, I don't think we are forgetting that there are differences between countries. With only a few of us from the UK, we are naturally going to discuss other countries as well.
Also, your economic "freedom" may be considered less free from another perspective. In Europe, you may have the freedom to express certain opinions without fear of losing your job, but then in Europe as an employer I may have less freedom to employ whom I choose. It is debatable which is more free, but certainly the European model is less libertarian. (I also think the differences between Europe and America are less black and white--there are significant labor protections here)
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2009, 03:53:08 AM
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.
Incidentally, I think you are forgetting that different Europe countries have quite different models of freedom of speech, and this doesn't just boil down to whether one country bans or allows hate speech. "Europe" is not unified on this issue.
QuoteFor 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.
In the US, you cannot be discriminated against because of mere opinion, either. In the US, we are bigger believers in the economic aspects of freedoms. For example, a media owner cannot be forced to allocate time to a party during election campaigns, and our media owners are free from competition from state-run media (in fact, US law prohibits government ownership of media that broadcasts or publishes in the US, though obviously not ones that target foreigners like RFE, etc).
QuoteWe just do things differently here.
And here and there and everywhere.
This isn't a difference between "the US" and "Europe." Certainly there is a difference between Poland (at least as represented by you) and the US. You regard government mandates as "freedoms" while in the US they are generally considered to be the opposite.
I didn't post this when it went down, but I think it's relevant. remember Ahenakew? He was the senile Indian chief who made remarks about teh joos causing WW2?
QuoteIn 2003 in Saskatchewan, the Crown charged David Ahenakew with wilfully promoting hatred because of the remarks he made about Jews to a reporter. The Court convicted Ahenakew, and fined him $1,000. In 2008, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan decided to retry the matter after the conviction was overturned on appeal.[13] On 23 February 2009, Judge Wilfred Tucker of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court said Ahenakew's remarks were "revolting, disgusting, and untrue," but they did not constitute "promoting hatred." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
the judge's decision is significant. here's another summary of another
controversial case:
Quotein June 1997, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal held that Hugh Owens had breached the Human Rights Code by placing in a newspaper an advertisement that gave citations for passages in the Bible. The passages condemn homosexual behaviour. Owens appealed. The Court of Queen's Bench agreed with the Tribunal. Owens appealed. In 2006, the Court of Appeal reversed the Tribunal's decision. [16]
it's interesting that while the Human Rights Commissions seem to have considerable power, their decisions are often (?) overruled by higher authorities. so I am left to wonder how viable Hate Speech legislation and the autonomous Human Rights Tribunals are within the Canadian justice system.
there's other examples: Levent and the Danish cartoons, Maclean's magazine, FreeDominion.ca. The first two were actually dismissed at the Commission level. I am wondering is it simply too easy to launch a Hate Crimes complaint?
Quote from: saskganesh on May 12, 2009, 08:46:59 AM
I didn't post this when it went down, but I think it's relevant. remember Ahenakew? He was the senile Indian chief who made remarks about teh joos causing WW2?
QuoteIn 2003 in Saskatchewan, the Crown charged David Ahenakew with wilfully promoting hatred because of the remarks he made about Jews to a reporter. The Court convicted Ahenakew, and fined him $1,000. In 2008, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan decided to retry the matter after the conviction was overturned on appeal.[13] On 23 February 2009, Judge Wilfred Tucker of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court said Ahenakew's remarks were "revolting, disgusting, and untrue," but they did not constitute "promoting hatred." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
I find it interesting that the terminology is "promoting hatred." Seems a dangerously low standard, as well as an unnecessary one: society really does not have a vested interest in preventing the promotion of attitudes. Behaviors, yes. Attitudes, no.
Quotethe judge's decision is significant. here's another summary of another
controversial case:
Quotein June 1997, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal held that Hugh Owens had breached the Human Rights Code by placing in a newspaper an advertisement that gave citations for passages in the Bible. The passages condemn homosexual behaviour. Owens appealed. The Court of Queen's Bench agreed with the Tribunal. Owens appealed. In 2006, the Court of Appeal reversed the Tribunal's decision. [16]
it's interesting that while the Human Rights Commissions seem to have considerable power, their decisions are often (?) overruled by higher authorities. so I am left to wonder how viable Hate Speech legislation and the autonomous Human Rights Tribunals are within the Canadian justice system.
While I think Human Rights Tribunals are debatably good, I think that their having anything to do with speech is probably quite bad. The "Human Right" to be free of exposure to speech one finds offensive is one of those "rights" that is more dangerous to society than the speech it is attempting to suppress.
Quotethere's other examples: Levent and the Danish cartoons, Maclean's magazine, FreeDominion.ca. The first two were actually dismissed at the Commission level. I am wondering is it simply too easy to launch a Hate Crimes complaint?
I would argue that it is.
Hate is a motive. Not a crime.
Well, I prefer the system we have here. Freedom of speech (like any other right) is not absolute, and we have had enough bad experiences with hate speech leading to atrocities in Europe, that we do not really want to protect it.
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2009, 11:26:31 AM
Well, I prefer the system we have here. Freedom of speech (like any other right) is not absolute, and we have had enough bad experiences with hate speech leading to atrocities in Europe, that we do not really want to protect it.
One would think you had had your fill of thought police too.
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2009, 10:30:25 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 11, 2009, 09:12:51 PM
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.
Agreed. Also, this isn't a partisan issue, Berkut. Both sides really dig gagging their opponents.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 12, 2009, 12:15:32 PM
Agreed. Also, this isn't a partisan issue, Berkut. Both sides really dig gagging their opponents.
Seems the Dems are the only ones talking about resurrecting Equal Time.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 12, 2009, 12:18:36 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 12, 2009, 12:15:32 PM
Agreed. Also, this isn't a partisan issue, Berkut. Both sides really dig gagging their opponents.
Seems the Dems are the only ones talking about resurrecting Equal Time.
I don't really see a problem with the fairness doctrine, as it were. It's not 'banning' speech.
Were they to propose a gag order, that would be censorship, and would be unacceptable.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 12, 2009, 12:15:32 PM
Also, this isn't a partisan issue, Berkut. Both sides really dig gagging their opponents.
In general it is not, in the particular, it is. Right now, it is only the Dems who are doing anything to try to restrict via legislation what the market has failed to do for them - namely create someone or something to counter-balance right wing radio.
It won't go anywhere, so I am not really worried about it, but it is rather revolting. Hell, stuff like this always has some feel good title like the "fairness doctrine".
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 12, 2009, 12:21:33 PM
I don't really see a problem with the fairness doctrine, as it were. It's not 'banning' speech.
Were they to propose a gag order, that would be censorship, and would be unacceptable.
Leaving aside Throbby's point, if that's not an example of gagging what are the manifestations of this desire on both sides to gag?
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 12:25:12 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 12, 2009, 12:15:32 PM
Also, this isn't a partisan issue, Berkut. Both sides really dig gagging their opponents.
In general it is not, in the particular, it is. Right now, it is only the Dems who are doing anything to try to restrict via legislation what the market has failed to do for them - namely create someone or something to counter-balance right wing radio.
It won't go anywhere, so I am not really worried about it, but it is rather revolting. Hell, stuff like this always has some feel good title like the "fairness doctrine".
Well, it's not like they are conjuring this up from nowhere... we had a fairness act until 1987, when it was removed.
I'm not clear on the issues surrounding this reversal, but it's not like this is something new.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 12, 2009, 12:32:54 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 12:25:12 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 12, 2009, 12:15:32 PM
Also, this isn't a partisan issue, Berkut. Both sides really dig gagging their opponents.
In general it is not, in the particular, it is. Right now, it is only the Dems who are doing anything to try to restrict via legislation what the market has failed to do for them - namely create someone or something to counter-balance right wing radio.
It won't go anywhere, so I am not really worried about it, but it is rather revolting. Hell, stuff like this always has some feel good title like the "fairness doctrine".
Well, it's not like they are conjuring this up from nowhere... we had a fairness act until 1987, when it was removed.
I'm not clear on the issues surrounding this reversal, but it's not like this is something new.
Well, it is one of those things that are fine, or not fine, depending on how it is applied. In fact, I think the USSC said pretty much exactly that. It has the
potential to violate free speech, but does not necessarily.
The use that the Dems which to put it to is, IMO, a violation of free speech. It is a straighforward attempt to force radio stations to air their views even if the listeners don't want to listen to them, after their rather spectacular failure at doing so themselves.
I am not sure why they bother - talk radio is shit anyway, with an audience that is either braindead, insanely partisan and radical, or simply amused to listen to the former. None of these people are important for the Dems to preach to. Besides, they already have NPR for that anyway!
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 12, 2009, 12:21:33 PM
I don't really see a problem with the fairness doctrine, as it were.
:x
QuoteIt's not 'banning' speech.
It can severely limit speech. Why else do you think the Dems keep mentioning it?
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 12:38:49 PM
I am not sure why they bother - talk radio is shit anyway, with an audience that is either braindead, insanely partisan and radical, or simply amused to listen to the former. None of these people are important for the Dems to preach to. Besides, they already have NPR for that anyway!
Yep. Talk radio is only really entertaining when people are insane or talk about sports which makes normally rational people act insane. I thought Yi said NPR was better these days after the Gingrich crowd reigned them in in the 90s.
Quote from: derspiess on May 12, 2009, 12:44:28 PM
Why else do you think the Dems keep mentioning it?
The sad thing is the thing that usually puts the Republicans in power is the Dems own idiocy, not some imagined talk radio bogeyman.
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2009, 11:26:31 AM
Well, I prefer the system we have here. Freedom of speech (like any other right) is not absolute, and we have had enough bad experiences with hate speech leading to atrocities in Europe, that we do not really want to protect it.
Understood that Poles are more likely to act on "hate speech," but the way around that is to introduce education on the topic, not attempt to sweep it under the rug through the implementation of thought crime legislation.
Much of Europe survives quite well without thought crime legislation. They are more advanced and well-educated than Poland, granted, but I think Poland can, with their aid, leapfrog into at least the 20th Century within a generation, if they try to solve the problem and not just try to suppress the symptoms.
Quote from: derspiess on May 12, 2009, 12:44:28 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 12, 2009, 12:21:33 PM
I don't really see a problem with the fairness doctrine, as it were.
:x
QuoteIt's not 'banning' speech.
It can severely limit speech. Why else do you think the Dems keep mentioning it?
Since the media is overwhelmingly liberal and out to get conservatives you'd think they'd be all for it.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2009, 03:54:05 PM
Since the media is overwhelmingly liberal and out to get conservatives you'd think they'd be all for it.
Talk radio is still pretty right-wing. You greedy liberals want to control that, too.
Our god-king must not be criticized!!!!
It is funny (sad funny, not haha funny) that now that Obama is in power, Limbaugh has become even more powerful, apparently.
I am hoping he splits the party and drives the radical conservatives out, or the moderates out. Either way the radicals will end up marginalized.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 12, 2009, 12:21:33 PM
I don't really see a problem with the fairness doctrine, as it were. It's not 'banning' speech.
Were they to propose a gag order, that would be censorship, and would be unacceptable.
I find that absolutely shocking.
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2009, 12:51:38 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2009, 11:26:31 AM
Well, I prefer the system we have here. Freedom of speech (like any other right) is not absolute, and we have had enough bad experiences with hate speech leading to atrocities in Europe, that we do not really want to protect it.
Understood that Poles are more likely to act on "hate speech," but the way around that is to introduce education on the topic, not attempt to sweep it under the rug through the implementation of thought crime legislation.
Much of Europe survives quite well without thought crime legislation. They are more advanced and well-educated than Poland, granted, but I think Poland can, with their aid, leapfrog into at least the 20th Century within a generation, if they try to solve the problem and not just try to suppress the symptoms.
I'm pretty sure most continental Europe countries have hate crimes legislation.
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.
Harry Reid did a radio interview locally here not long ago and they asked him about the Fairness Doctrine. His response was something along the lines of: "Nobody serious is interested in reinstating it, and we have no intention of doing so. The whole issue is just a red herring being used to whip talk radio listeners into a frenzy."
He also stated that he did think it was a free speech issue and was totally against it no matter what other fringe-type Dems said.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 12, 2009, 04:22:05 PM
Harry Reid did a radio interview locally here not long ago and they asked him about the Fairness Doctrine. His response was something along the lines of: "Nobody serious is interested in reinstating it, and we have no intention of doing so. The whole issue is just a red herring being used to whip talk radio listeners into a frenzy."
He also stated that he did think it was a free speech issue and was totally against it no matter what other fringe-type Dems said.
That's great. Just too bad Pelosi is among that "fringe".
Oh, and sorry to have to quote Wikipedia, but:
QuoteSupport
Some Democratic legislators, fearing conservative talk radio, have expressed interest in reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine,[19] although no one has introduced legislation to do so since 2005.
In June 2007, Senator Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) said, "It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine," [20] an opinion shared by his Democratic colleague, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.[21] However, according to Marin Cogan of The New Republic in late 2008:
" Senator Durbin's press secretary says that Durbin has 'no plans, no language, no nothing. He was asked in a hallway last year, he gave his personal view' — that the American people were served well under the doctrine — 'and it's all been blown out of proportion.'[22] "
On June 24, 2008, U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, California (who had been elected Speaker of the House in January 2007) told reporters that her fellow Democratic Representatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding "the interest in my caucus is the reverse." When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, "Do you personally support revival of the 'Fairness Doctrine?'", the Speaker replied "Yes." [23]
On October 22, 2008, Senator Jeff Bingaman (Democrat of New Mexico) told a conservative talk radio host in Albuquerque, New Mexico:
" I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view. All I'm saying is that for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since.[24] "
On December 15, 2008, U.S. Representative Anna Eshoo (Democrat of California) told The Daily Post in Palo Alto, California that she thought it should also apply to cable and satellite broadcasters.
" I'll work on bringing it back. I still believe in it. It should and will affect everyone.[25] "
On February 4, 2009, Senator Debbie Stabenow (Democrat of Michigan) told radio host and WorldNetDaily columnist Bill Press, when asked whether it was time to bring back the Doctrine:
" I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it's called the Fairness Standard, whether it's called something else — I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. "
When Press asked if she would seek Senate hearings on such accountability in 2009, she replied:
" I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that's gonna happen. Yep.[26] "
A week later, on February 11, 2009, Senator Tom Harkin (Democrat of Iowa) told Press, "...we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again." Later in response to Press's assertion that "...they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another," Senator Harkin responded, "Exactly, and that's why we need the fair — that's why we need the Fairness Doctrine back." [27]
Former President Bill Clinton has also shown support for the Fairness Doctrine. During a February 13, 2009, appearance on the Mario Solis Marich radio show, Clinton said:
" Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side, because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows. "
Clinton cited the "blatant drumbeat" against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio, suggesting that it doesn't reflect economic reality.[28]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
Reid should remind his colleagues in Washington that nobody is interested in reinstating it :P
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 04:07:00 PM
It is funny (sad funny, not haha funny) that now that Obama is in power, Limbaugh has become even more powerful, apparently.
I am hoping he splits the party and drives the radical conservatives out, or the moderates out. Either way the radicals will end up marginalized.
How has he become more powerful? He has become more visible beacause the president chose to direct critisisms of his opponents at him. This hasn't made him more powerful.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2009, 04:40:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 04:07:00 PM
It is funny (sad funny, not haha funny) that now that Obama is in power, Limbaugh has become even more powerful, apparently.
I am hoping he splits the party and drives the radical conservatives out, or the moderates out. Either way the radicals will end up marginalized.
How has he become more powerful? He has become more visible beacause the president chose to direct critisisms of his opponents at him. This hasn't made him more powerful.
Of course it has. The best thing that could have happened to talk radio was Bill Clinton getting elected president. Before that they were well known but essentially irrelevent to most of the electorate. Someone as adept as causing controversy and rumors as Bill made them powerhouses. Obama could probably top that.
Quote from: derspiess on May 12, 2009, 03:58:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2009, 03:54:05 PM
Since the media is overwhelmingly liberal and out to get conservatives you'd think they'd be all for it.
Talk radio is still pretty right-wing. You greedy liberals want to control that, too.
Our god-king must not be criticized!!!!
Yeah, but wouldn't you stand to gain? Anyway your God-King left office in January.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2009, 04:53:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 12, 2009, 03:58:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2009, 03:54:05 PM
Since the media is overwhelmingly liberal and out to get conservatives you'd think they'd be all for it.
Talk radio is still pretty right-wing. You greedy liberals want to control that, too.
Our god-king must not be criticized!!!!
Yeah, but wouldn't you stand to gain? Anyway your God-King left office in January.
The way Obama is going, we are in year nine of Bush II.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 12, 2009, 05:06:22 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2009, 05:32:42 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 12, 2009, 05:06:22 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2009, 05:32:42 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 12, 2009, 05:06:22 PM
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.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 12, 2009, 05:34:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2009, 04:21:08 PM
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.
QuoteAnyway, 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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 12, 2009, 05:47:46 PM
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."
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2009, 07:08:12 PM
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 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.
Quote from: garbon on May 12, 2009, 07:13:17 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2009, 07:08:12 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2009, 04:53:25 PM
Yeah, but wouldn't you stand to gain? Anyway your God-King left office in January.
Hmm, where was the Bush-worshiping? :unsure:
Quote from: derspiess on May 12, 2009, 09:07:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2009, 04:53:25 PM
Yeah, but wouldn't you stand to gain? Anyway your God-King left office in January.
Hmm, where was the Bush-worshiping? :unsure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxdt_f0hwUg
Quote from: alfred russel on May 12, 2009, 07:12:14 PM
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. :blush:
Call a spade a spade; that's trolling.
Quote from: garbon on May 12, 2009, 11:08:35 PM
Call a spade a spade; that's trolling.
the metaphor predates racisssm. Plutarch must have been a scandinavian humanoid then.
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.
Frankly, I am stunned that Marty would make this be all about homosexuality. I certainly did not see that one coming.
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2009, 07:55:54 PM
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!"
If it is true, why wouldn't one? :huh:
For instance "You are just saying that because you are my mother."
Besides that is not what I was talking about, but rather that one naturally takes into account one's audience when responding. I'm not going to react in the same way with say my sister as I would if speaking to my father, because we have different shared histories
Quote from: garbon on May 13, 2009, 09:02:48 AM
If it is true, why wouldn't one? :huh:
Because, if it is true, one cannot know it. Only one's brother knows this.
QuoteFor instance "You are just saying that because you are my mother."
Because such utterances are pathetic bleating, and I have too much respect for myself to indulge in such.
Quote from: garbon on May 13, 2009, 09:10:49 AM
Besides that is not what I was talking about, but rather that one naturally takes into account one's audience when responding. I'm not going to react in the same way with say my sister as I would if speaking to my father, because we have different shared histories
No one is, but then no one was arguing that.
Quote from: grumbler on May 13, 2009, 12:28:25 PM
No one is, but then no one was arguing that.
So can you explain what you mean then? Because that's what I think your bit about not replying to posters means and that's why I'm confused.
Quote from: grumbler on May 13, 2009, 12:27:36 PM
Because such utterances are pathetic bleating, and I have too much respect for myself to indulge in such.
If overused, sure. But I wasn't suggesting that.
Quote from: garbon on May 13, 2009, 12:31:27 PM
So can you explain what you mean then? Because that's what I think your bit about not replying to posters means and that's why I'm confused.
I don't think I can explain it so that you can understand it, if you don't understand what I have said so far... at least, explain it within a reasonable amount of lifespan spent.
Sorry. Put the blame on me.
Okay, I'll ask better when I have time later.