MSNBC fires savage for hate speech: "you should only get AIDS and die, you pig"

[pseudobrit]

CALLER: "Hey Michael Savage, a pleasure to speak with you today. I was flying out of LaGuardia, and there was two undercover security guards. Somebody was smoking in the bathroom"

SAVAGE: "Someone was smoking in the bathroom."

CALLER: "Unbelievable."

SAVAGE: "What happened?"

CALLER: "Half-hour into the flight, I need to suggest that Don and Mike take your [silence] cause your teeth are [unintelligible]

SAVAGE: "Alright, so you're one of those sodomists? Are you a sodomite? "

CALLER: "Yes, I am."

SAVAGE: "Oh, you're one of the sodomites! You should only get AIDS and die, you pig! How's that? [off-screen crew can be heard shouting "Whoa!"] Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig? You got nothing better 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. OK, do we have another nice caller here who's busy because he didn't have a nice night in the bathhouse and is angry at me today? Huh? Get me another one, put another sodomite on! No more calls? I don't care. Let's go to the next scene. I don't care about these bums, they mean nothing to me. They're all sausages. Next scene, onto the next scene on the Savage Nation"

Wow... more to come...

[pseudobrit]

Instead of apologising, he posts "The Real Story" on his website:

What happened on the air is much different than what is being reported. It was in the middle of an airline horror story segment with a great set (see photos above). Out of nowhere a crank caller from a competitive talk show went from describing his airline horror story to making vicious personal attacks against me. I signaled and thought that this crank caller was cut from the air...

I have the video. There was no signal. He knew he was on air, and you can hear his crew were trying to stop him from ranting.

His insults continued in my ear piece and I reacted to him personally as an individual who was attacking me to defend myself.

Unfortunately, my personal comments to this crank caller were broadcast. In no way did my comments reflect my views of disease and suffering in any way. I have spent my entire life in the field of alternative medicine trying to heal the world and bring comfort to the sick. If my comments brought pain to anyone I certainly did not intend for this to happen and apologize for any such reaction.

Let me repeat, this was an interchange between me personally and a mean spirited vicious setup caller which I thought was taking place off the air. It was not meant to reflect my views of the terrible tragedy and suffering associated with AIDS. I especially appeal to my many listeners in the gay community to accept my apologies for any inadvertent insults which may have occurred.

What an insult of an apology. His reaction to wishing AIDS on someone, calling him a sodomite and implying that other gay callers would frequent bath houses to have a "nice night" is to say that such hatred wasn't supposed to make it on air.

IOW, he's saying he's sorry because you weren't supposed to hear his true feelings about gays.

[zimv20]

i never knew he was filled w/ so much hate :rolleyes:

be interesting to see who comes to his defense

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by zimv20
i never knew he was filled w/ so much hate :rolleyes:

be interesting to see who comes to his defense

satan, for one:p

[Thanatoast]

Isn't this guy a professional *******? Doesn't he get paid to piss people off? He's a shock jock, right? Sounds like people are shocked, but I don't know why they are.

[jefhatfield]

each year he just gets stranger and stranger

when he was more mainstream, he was reigned in by the major network who hosted him...he was controversial, but not one who would have expoused hate

but when he got more famous and didn't have the same mainstream forces controlling him, he started showing his true colors

he is more than a shock jock...he is a hate monger and would have done quite well in hitler's regime or stalin's regime...he is about as stable as the son of sam and now america is starting to see that

[macfan]

He wasn't fired just for hate speech. He was also fired because he had bad ratings. If he was popular, they would have thought twice before pulling the plug, suspended him for a while, and brought him back.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by macfan
He wasn't fired just for hate speech. He was also fired because he had bad ratings. If he was popular, they would have thought twice before pulling the plug, suspended him for a while, and brought him back.

So are you saying that hate speech is something to be condoned if the person is "popular"?

It's about time that this racise, homophobic a^^hole is gone. There's enough hate on the airwaves without MSNBC condoning it. Now if only Rush would go away....

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by macfan
He wasn't fired just for hate speech. He was also fired because he had bad ratings. If he was popular, they would have thought twice before pulling the plug, suspended him for a while, and brought him back.

that's probably true

i remember ksjo in the old days when they would fire a shock jock, but then bring him back...this happened with more than one dj...and in their day, they went way beyond bad taste

but savage is either full of hate...his writings and his website seem that way, too...or he is cashing in on appearing that way because undoubtedly, he knows that his detractors listen to him in large numbers

actors play bad guys in movies (some better than others) and get paid good money for it...robert deniro was great in "the fan" where he was a depraved violent knife salesman...and savage could be playing a similarily deranged person, but making people believe it for real from his radio show, but in the end, like deniro, cashing in

if michael savage is for real, then he really is no better than the son of sam or adolph hitler...it's amazing to read or hear some of the trash he expouses

[macfan]

Originally posted by Ugg
So are you saying that hate speech is something to be condoned if the person is "popular"?

It's about time that this racise, homophobic a^^hole is gone. There's enough hate on the airwaves without MSNBC condoning it. Now if only Rush would go away....

No, I am saying that MSNBC would probably have kept him on if he was popular, not that they would be right in doing so.

In any event, I don't think that hate speech should be limited by laws, but for societal pressure to punish it is a good thing. Here's why: there's also a good deal of hate type speech against Savage that you have dispalyed in your previous post. Is it justified? Maybe so, but it still sounds pretty hateful and depending on who is in charge of deciding what kind of hate speech should be punished, you might find yourself in a pinch!

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ugg
So are you saying that hate speech is something to be condoned if the person is "popular"?

It's about time that this racise, homophobic a^^hole is gone. There's enough hate on the airwaves without MSNBC condoning it. Now if only Rush would go away....

rush mentioned on cnn that he is not a politcial expert or commentator, but an entertainer, but with an opinion

this gives him a lot more leeway in what he can say and misquote...same with al franken and his retort to rush...too funny...i love the part in al franken's book when he goes off against newt gingrich who says something like [quoting newt] "MEN are not meant to sit inside and work because they have large upper bodies and are meant to hunt giraffe" and "women should not join the military because they will get yeast infections in the trenches" or basically something like that

many of today's right wingers are just nazis in sheep's clothing and would like nothing more than to exterminate people that are different fro them, like homosexuals

i have heard drivel from some right wing members of macrumors who make me think that they would not hesitate for a second to set up death camps to people who are different...being such a large base of members at macrumors, you have right wingers, left wingers, middle of the road people, nazis, communists, cops, and felons...and all mac users

my father was in the us army to fight against tyranny (against imperial japan) in world war II along with many other soldiers and basically for freedom...and then you have right wing idiots like savage who want to become their little own "savages" right here in my backyard in northern california

on michael savage's website, he has american flags and that makes me puke that such a bigot displays our proud symbol and on the picture on one of his books, he shows the great golden gate bridge in the background...savage defaces the picture

it's not different than seeing the kkk march with american flags or the man boy love association and their call for pedophilia, also march with american flags

and macfan,

sure we have freedom of speech, and these groups are protected to march, but speaking against them is not hateful

[Ugg]

Originally posted by macfan
In any event, I don't think that hate speech should be limited by laws, but for societal pressure to punish it is a good thing. Here's why: there's also a good deal of hate type speech against Savage that you have dispalyed in your previous post. Is it justified? Maybe so, but it still sounds pretty hateful and depending on who is in charge of deciding what kind of hate speech should be punished, you might find yourself in a pinch!

Well, unlike the chicken and egg conundrum, here I know which one came first. Unless I'm mistaken, when it comes to name calling, the courts generally rule against he who started it.

The first two adjectives were pretty accurate, wouldn't you agree? He's never made himself out to be anything else so I seriously doubt that that could be considered hate speech. To be called an a^^hole is, I think, but please correct me if I am wrong, not a generally recognized form of hate speech. We all have one, no matter what our color or cultural background. You can do better than that macfan. To be an apologist for such a man is sad indeed.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ugg
Well, unlike the chicken and egg conundrum, here I know which one came first. Unless I'm mistaken, when it comes to name calling, the courts generally rule against he who started it.

The first two adjectives were pretty accurate, wouldn't you agree? He's never made himself out to be anything else so I seriously doubt that that could be considered hate speech. To be called an a^^hole is, I think, but please correct me if I am wrong, not a generally recognized form of hate speech. We all have one, no matter what our color or cultural background. You can do better than that macfan. To be an apologist for such a man is sad indeed.

i want to hear macfan now defend hitler's actions and those of america's more well known serial killers

pat buchannan, a perennial gop presidential hopeful, until 2000, mentioned he didn't think the holocaust happened and that it was basically american propoganda

the ultra right seem to have this great way to justify evil and they do it with more vigor than any group of people i have ever met

[Sayhey]

Savage started out with a local talk show here in the Bay Area. He has always been a racist and a homophobe. He loves to impune the basest of motives to his political opponents. Called Al Gore, "Gorlene" (ala the Godfather) throughout the last campaign. He has almost been fired in the past for racist (anti-asian) remarks. He just keeps turning his hate speech into a bigger and bigger show. Hope this time it backfired.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Savage started out with a local talk show here in the Bay Area. He has always been a racist and a homophobe. He loves to impune the basest of motives to his political opponents. Called Al Gore, "Gorlene" (ala the Godfather) throughout the last campaign. He has almost been fired in the past for racist (anti-asian) remarks. He just keeps turning his hate speech into a bigger and bigger show. Hope this time it backfired.

if he gets axed for good, there will unfortunately be many like him to preach hate in his place

it's like if we bring bin laden to justice...there will be a like minded psychopath ready to step in tomorrow

[Sayhey]

"if he gets axed for good, there will unfortunately be many like him to preach hate in his place

it's like if we bring bin laden to justice...there will be a like minded psychopath ready to step in tomorrow"
I'm sure you're right, but at least the next psychopath will know that there are limits to the garbage he or she can throw out on the airwaves without losing their job.

[macfan]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i want to hear macfan now defend hitler's actions and those of america's more well known serial killers

pat buchannan, a perennial gop presidential hopeful, until 2000, mentioned he didn't think the holocaust happened and that it was basically american propoganda

the ultra right seem to have this great way to justify evil and they do it with more vigor than any group of people i have ever met

You want to hear me defend the actions of Hitler? What kind of BS crap is that? What if I said I wanted to hear you defend the actions of Jeffrey Dalmer? It makes about as much sense as you wanting to hear me defend the actions of Hitler or some serial killer!

One could make a pretty good argument that claiming that other posters on this forum would like to set up death camps or that today's right wingers are Nazis is, in fact, a form of hate speech. To accuse a group of wanting to set up death camps certainly seems to be on the outskirts of hate speech city, at the very least.

While I have never been a fan of Pat Buchannan, I haven't heard him say that Hitler didn't murder all those Jews, along with others, in concentration camps. Do you have a link to a solid source for that?

Ugg,
The chicken or the egg is not relevant. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. When you start to punish thought by government action, you open the door to having your own thoughts punished by government action when the majority or the powerful happen to think your thoughts should be punished.

Contrarty to your ridiculous claim, I am not speaking out as an apologist for this man. I am speaking out against the legal theory of hate speech, which amounts, IMO, to government sponsored thought police.


The first two adjectives were pretty accurate, wouldn't you agree?

I haven't watched or heard him, but they do seem accurate based on the information at hand. However, it doesn't matter if they are accurate or not. We don't get to decide that under the theory of hate speech--the speaker doesn't get to make that determination. That is determined by someone else and enforced by the power of the state.

[Rower_CPU]

How does the legal theory of hate speech amount to government sponsored thought police? Last I checked, we hadn't achieved telepathy and people still have a choice as to whether they say aloud what's on their minds.

Why are you trying to turn this into a political correctness debate?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Why are you trying to turn this into a political correctness debate?

Because he can't defend Savage any other way.

[macfan]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
How does the legal theory of hate speech amount to government sponsored thought police? Last I checked, we hadn't achieved telepathy and people still have a choice as to whether they say aloud what's on their minds.

Why are you trying to turn this into a political correctness debate?

"people still have a choice as to whether they say aloud what's on their minds."

Do you realize how utterly chilling those words should sound to the soul of a freedom-loving people?

Why discuss hate speech as a legal concept? (this is a slightly different concept from politically correct speech). Because there isn't much to debate regarding whether Savage seems to be an *******, and having people agree all the time is boring.

[macfan]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Because he can't defend Savage any other way.

pseudobrit,
If I wanted to defend Savage, I would. I don't want to defend him, so I do not. Why don't you try to add something useful to the discussion instead of lying by saying that I am defending Savage?

[Sayhey]

This is not a first amendment issue! The government did not tell MSNBC to fire Savage. The network just finally made the decision to no longer associate themselves with his stupidity. Savage will no doubt continue to be able to sell his nonsense elsewhere. I don't dispute his right to say the nonsense he spews forth, I just would like fewer and fewer broadcasting stations to support him in his crusades.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by macfan
"people still have a choice as to whether they say aloud what's on their minds."

Do you realize how utterly chilling those words should sound to the soul of a freedom-loving people?

Why discuss hate speech as a legal concept? (this is a slightly different concept from politically correct speech). Because there isn't much to debate regarding whether Savage seems to be an *******, and having people agree all the time is boring.

Do you realize how idiotic "government sponsored thought police" sounds in this context? People still have the choice as to whether or not they hit someone, or shoot someone, or rape someone. Are those chilling words for "freedom-loving people", too?

Acts can be judged, thoughts cannot. Speech is an act. It's simple.

"Having people agree all the time is boring"? In other words, you'd rather incense people and start a debate where one doesn't exist? Not exactly an approach designed for discourse, but rather discord.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by macfan
pseudobrit,
If I wanted to defend Savage, I would. I don't want to defend him, so I do not. Why don't you try to add something useful to the discussion instead of lying by saying that I am defending Savage?

It's just my observation. You are trying to change the subject instead of letting it focus on the fact that Savage is a hate monger and shouldn't be given a forum on national media to spread his intolerance.

[macfan]

Originally posted by Sayhey
This is not a first amendment issue! The government did not tell MSNBC to fire Savage. The network just finally made the decision to no longer associate themselves with his stupidity. Savage will no doubt continue to be able to sell his nonsense elsewhere. I don't dispute his right to say the nonsense he spews forth, I just would like fewer and fewer broadcasting stations to support him in his crusades.

Of course Savage's firing isn't a first amendment issue. No one has said that it is.

Rower_CPU,
In other words, you'd rather incense people and start a debate where one doesn't exist? Not exactly an approach designed for discourse, but rather discord.

Why should it incense people to argue that laws restricting speech ought not be imposed, even thought there are people who say things that are very unsavory? There are many countries that have such laws, and there are some who advocate additional laws in this country prohibiting speech. Others, myself included, find the concept of speech laws of this type to be, in effect, thought police, and see them as antithetical to freedom.

Often, examples such as the rather foul comments of people like Savage are used as a justification for supporting such laws. That is what brought the legal theory of hate speech to mind in this particular instance. I merely mentioned that Savage would have probably been kept on if he was popular and, as an aside, that I don't agree with hate speech as a legal theory. This has resulted in some rather idiotic sounding statements by some posters who have said that I am an apologist for Savage, that they would like to hear me defend Hitler, and that certain posters on this forum would like to set up death camps.

Acts can be judged, thoughts cannot. Speech is an act. It's simple.

The expression of unpopular thought is what should be protected against government action, for popular thought needs no such protection. While it can be argued that speech is an act, it can also be argued that speech, if it is an act before the law, is a protected act and should be treated very differently before the law than hitting, shooting, or raping someone.

The idea that one can have freedom of thought so long as one doesn't express that thought should, indeed, send chills down the spine of freedom-loving people.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by macfan

This has resulted in some rather idiotic sounding statements by some posters who have said that I am an apologist for Savage, that they would like to hear me defend Hitler, and that certain posters on this forum would like to set up death camps.





we only go by what you say

but better yet, listen to his show or read about him on the internet

my gut tells me that he is into hating others, but without knowing mr savage personally, it is still possible that he does his antics for ratings

i am pretty sure that it is in line with some shows i have seen on reality tv which sets up scenarios which look like real life but are made more for the sake of ratings

i have been on this site for three years and taken in context of that, i have heard some pretty crazy ideas and language from some posters...some of who are banned

i listened to savage on kgo in san francisco before he went to another station and got more ridiculous

[macfan]

Check this out. (http://greenvilleonline.com/news/2003/07/07/200307079700.htm)

Let us assume that this person was fired for having views unpopular with ownership. While that's the right of the station to hire and fire as they see fit (even if I think they should or shouldn't do so in particular instances), it would be quite another matter, IMO, for the government to charge said person with some legal offense.

[macfan]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
we only go by what you say


And if you could point to any defense of Savage on my part, I would not have complained about being called an apologist for him.

i have been on this site for three years and taken in context of that, i have heard some pretty crazy ideas and language from some posters...some of who are banned

Am I to take this to mean that you do not really think I am an apologist for Hitler and serial killers, and would like to set up death camps? ;)

BTW, if he does his antics for ratings, it didn't work on his TV show since no one watches that network anyway. (MSNBC ratings = in the toliet).

[zimv20]

Originally posted by macfan

Let us assume that this person was fired for having views unpopular with ownership. While that's the right of the station to hire and fire as they see fit (even if I think they should or shouldn't do so in particular instances), it would be quite another matter, IMO, for the government to charge said person with some legal offense.

surprise surprise that the owner is clear channel :rolleyes:

CC is about as close to being government as you can get. they've got a nice track record of strongarm tactics and being in bed w/ the GOP.

they're also THE example that many pointed to when opposing the recently announced FCC relaxation of the TV station ownership rules.

[jefhatfield]

interesting link to the lady who got fired !


when gwb visited a major american city during the war, there were tons of angry, loud protesters heard in the background

in one of the few things he has said that i agree with, the president commented that the protests are americans exercising free speech

in another thread i started here, i called back for the reinstatement of spikey, who was thrown off for controversial and argumentative and sometimes insulting posts

but in context to the pol forums since his departure, spikey is quite mild (even with his trademark four letter words)

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by macfan
... having people agree all the time is boring.

End of discussion. This forum is not here for your entertainment.