Michael Savage suing Britain :P

[garybUK]

hahah this guy makes me laugh, not only does he just totally backup why he shouldn't be allowed in but he's doing exactly what he's suing them (the British Government) to Jacqui, calling her a lunatic is defamation!!! who will actually sue them i don't know... the Americans? don't make me laugh!

link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8035114.stm

[Kardashian]

I Twittered @ him this morning telling him I don't want scum like him in the country.

[kastenbrust]

The only reason he got barred from entry and put on the list is because he's an extreme conservative and our socialist government doesn't want his conservative views to be aired in this country, because they know people will pay attention to him, even if its bad attention, its still attention, and they dont want people to think anything but communism. If it was a left wing communist or socialist extremeist im sure they wouldn't have been put on the list. I personally dislike this guys right wing views, but people shouldn't be told what to think by governments.

[garybUK]

The only reason he got barred from entry and put on the list is because he's an extreme conservative and our socialist government doesn't want his conservative views to be aired in this country, because they know people will pay attention to him, even if its bad attention, its still attention, and they dont want people to think anything but communism. If it was a left wing communist or socialist extremeist im sure they wouldn't have been put on the list. I personally dislike this guys right wing views, but people shouldn't be told what to think by governments.

But freedom of speech is a privilege held by residents of that country, if this guy is spreading hatred then our government has every right to ban him from coming here. He doesn't and should not hold the same right in this country. People think they are automatically allowed the same rights as they hold in their country... wrong.... if I went to China on holiday then i'd obey the Chinese law, not the law of the United Kingdom.

This also extends to America, they don't care about us, were all criminals in their eyes so why should it not extend both ways?

[yg17]

1. Call him by his real name, Michael Weiner.
2. He was banned because the UK has stricter laws on blatant hate speech, and anytime Weiner opens his mouth, hate spews out. If he's incapable of following UK law, then why should they let him in?

[iBlue]

Here's a link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/05/michael-savage-banned-fro_n_196631.html) with a bit more info, including The List.


Part of me thinks it's a good thing that the government denied access to hate-mongering people like this guy and the Phelps', but another part of me thinks it's not up to the government to decide who gets to speak. I digress.

[kastenbrust]

He was banned because the UK has stricter laws on blatant hate speech, and anytime Weiner opens his mouth, hate spews out. If he's incapable of following UK law, then why should they let him in?

Maybe some people want to hear what he's got to say? He wouldnt go to the UK for a cup of tea would he? What some people consider hate speech is common sense for others, its all a matter of perspective. This reminds me of see no evil, hear no evil, do no evil. Its like sticking your fingers in your ears and singing *la la la*...

What he stands for is awful, but thats because i've been able to read about him, and come to my own informed autonomous conculsion.

[Queso]

Every person on the planet should be allowed into the UK and allowed to speak. The existence of this list is another example of our government telling us we cannot be trusted to make up our own minds. I for one am sick of being treated like a child by the likes of Jacqui Smith.

As much as I despise his position on a large number of subjects I hope Michael Savage both sues and wins.

[garybUK]

Maybe some people want to hear what he's got to say? He wouldnt go to the UK for a cup of tea would he? What some people consider hate speech is common sense for others, its all a matter of perspective. This reminds me of see no evil, hear no evil, do no evil. Its like sticking your fingers in your ears and singing *la la la*...

What he stands for is awful, but thats because i've been able to read about him, and come to my own informed autonomous conculsion.

Who's he gonna goto to sue the British Government? Who can enforce us to pay damages? come on. This guy is insane.

[Kardashian]

Here's a link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/05/michael-savage-banned-fro_n_196631.html) with a bit more info, including The List.


Part of me thinks it's a good thing that the government denied access to hate-mongering people like this guy and the Phelps', but another part of me thinks it's not up to the government to decide who gets to speak. I digress.

I agree - to an extent.

I think for a visitor to come and visit this country, only to spread hate about gay people, Jews (I'm stuffed, I'm both), and G-d knows what else is wrong - and people like him should be 'gagged' (barred from entering the country).

We're lucky to live in a pretty equal rights country, and we don't need people like him coming in and moking those rights, or making us feel like ***** on our own turf.

I'm glad he's not being allowed in. From the 2 radio recordings I've heard I couldn't listen past the first minute. He's a disgusting human being.

[iBlue]

I know what you mean, Kardashian, but the freedom to decide for yourself that someone is a disgusting individual is a right that just got taken away from us by our government. That is where I digress. I much prefer less government involvement and more of people being able to make choices for themselves, you know?

[Kardashian]

Maybe some people want to hear what he's got to say? He wouldnt go to the UK for a cup of tea would he? What some people consider hate speech is common sense for others, its all a matter of perspective.

I doubt the majority of the UK want to hear him. Not that they'd go as far as to ban him - but they wouldn't go out of their way to hear a man discriminate so many of their friends and family.

Right now, the UK is a very equal country - something which I am proud of, one of the few things I'm proud of, when it come to this country.

I don't want an idiot like him, coming in and telling me I'm wrong for my beliefs and the person I am: Jewish and Gay.

He doesn't speak common sense. He speaks his own deluded word, and forces it on other people. When people call his radio show, they don't finish a sentence before he disconnects the call, and carries on his own mission to make someone else feel like crap about who they are because he's the great "Savage".

This country has enough idiots without the likes of him.

[Queso]

Who's he gonna goto to sue the British Government? Who can enforce us to pay damages? come on. This guy is insane.
The British Courts have jurisdiction over the British Government. The Government have lost a number of cases over the years and had to pay the damages awarded.

[garybUK]

I doubt the majority of the UK want to hear him. Not that they'd go as far as to ban him - but they wouldn't go out of their way to hear a man discriminate so many of their friends and family.

Right now, the UK is a very equal country - something which I am proud of, one of the few things I'm proud of, when it come to this country.

I don't want an idiot like him, coming in and telling me I'm wrong for my beliefs and the person I am: Jewish and Gay.

He doesn't speak common sense. He speaks his own deluded word, and forces it on other people. When people call his radio show, they don't finish a sentence before he disconnects the call, and carries on his own mission to make someone else feel like crap about who they are because he's the great "Savage".

This country has enough idiots without the likes of him.


I agree, I'm proud of the fact that being gay doesn't hinder my career and that it's more acceptable in public. This guy should NOT be allowed to come and try to undo our progression. Simple. The Government are dead right in this case. He is welcome to spout his drivel in his own country but leave ours be it's NONE of his business how we do things in this country.

[Kardashian]

I know what you mean, Kardashian, but the freedom to decide for yourself that someone is a disgusting individual is a right that just got taken away from us by our government. That is where I digress. I much prefer less government involvement and more of people being able to make choices for themselves, you know?

Completely. I think maybe I should have been a bit more clear about his MO, and kept my personal opinions out of it.

OK. Freedom is speech, great, is something we can do, hopefully without the Government meddling.

But, this person would not enter the country, speak, and leave. He would stay here, and force his views upon people. He would not shut up. He tears people apart. That would cause a lot of anger and uproar, and hurt feelings. He does not let anyone have their say - even callers who join in on his show, who start off with how much they love him - he disconnects them and starts ranting on their behalf, judging whole genders/races/religions/sexualities.

Unless you follow his deranged view, you're toast.

I think this is one of the few cases where the Government did right by keeping someone out. He's dangerous. Not terrorist dangerous, but he goes against all our equal rights in this country.

I agree, I'm proud of the fact that being gay doesn't hinder my career and that it's more acceptable in public. This guy should NOT be allowed to come and try to undo our progression. Simple. The Government are dead right in this case. He is welcome to spout his drivel in his own country but leave ours be it's NONE of his business how we do things in this country.

Exactly.

I'm all for freedom of speech but not when it takes away my rights as a Citizen of this country and a Human Being.

Also, a note to the idiot himself (Savage): its the British Government he'll need to sue, not the English one.

[iBlue]

^ I know what you mean. I think where I start to fall off the fence is when I think of the precedent this sets. I may not care about the plight of a hateful bigot but one day I may have a plight of my own and may well wish I'd stuck up for the plights/freedoms of others in the face of a controlling government when I had the chance. You never know when it's going to be your 'plight' and your freedoms taken away next. Hence, my digression.

[Kardashian]

^ I know what you mean. I think where I start to fall off the fence is when I think of the precedent this sets. I may not care about the plight of a hateful bigot but one day I may have a plight of my own and may well wish I'd stuck up for the plights/freedoms of others in the face of a controlling government when I had the chance. You never know when it's going to be your 'plight' and your freedoms taken away next. Hence, my digression.

Again, I agree.

But, to put it simply: when it comes to someone so transparent as Savage, I'd rather the Government assume on 'our' behalf and take away his rights, before he comes in to take away ours.

I completely see where you're coming from, and like with your 50/50 stance, I have the same thing, except I'm leaning more strongly toward 'ban him now - ask us questions later' where as I think you're the other way around? :)

edit: not that that's a bad thing!

[iBlue]

I think you've got it spot on. We sit on the same fence just leaning slightly different directions. :)

[kastenbrust]

of course what he says is wrong, and may even be offsenive to the Jewish comminty, but putting our fingers in our ears and banning him from the country makes us just as bad as him. What are you scared of? You think he's going to convert people to his views by coming here? If thats what you think then you dont take much pride in this country, and thats offensive to me. 450,000 British Citizens died fighting Hitler, i dont think we're quite ready to become neo-Nazi's yet.

[remmy]

I am quiet happy he has be banded as well as others on the list. There are enough thugs in the country already we don't want any more.

I do agree on the freedom of speech issue and more importantly a meddling government.

In this case I would have had a problem if they had banned someone who was criticising the government or other issues that differed from race and sexuality.

[Ugg]

of course what he says is wrong, and may even be offsenive to the Jewish comminty, but putting our fingers in our ears and banning him from the country makes us just as bad as him. What are you scared of? You think he's going to convert people to his views by coming here? If thats what you think then you dont take much pride in this country, and thats offensive to me. 450,000 British Citizens died fighting Hitler, i dont think we're quite ready to become neo-Nazi's yet.

I do find a lot of hypocrisy in the British rules when it comes to speech. The prince's Nazi costume dress is ok, but the British press is always ridiculing Austria and Germany for jailing anyone who does the same thing. Now, michael whiner, has been banned because he defamed Ms Smith.

There's a lack of consistency there.

[gibbz]

What's funny, is that Weiner, a U.S. citizen, is trying to sue another country for withholding perceived rights, although those rights are reserved for citizens of that country.

Isn't this the same thing that this lunatic rants on and on about when it comes to illegal aliens from Mexico? Anytime someone mentions that these people are having rights withheld, he blasts them as foreign scum.

Well Mr. Weiner, speaking as an American, I'm sure a good majority of people in Great Britain you are foreign scum!

[CarlisleUnited]

I have big problems with this issue. While I understand why maybe the government doesn't like things he says I am a big believer of freedom of speech. I know the things that that man has said have been horribly racist and offensive in many ways he should still have the right to voice his opinion. It's only a small step from censoring these people to censoring political opponents, something I wouldn't put past the current Labour government, they've already taken pretty much every other right that we have in this country :mad:

[Sehnsucht]

This also extends to America, they don't care about us, we're all criminals in their eyes so why should it not extend both ways?

:confused: What are you talking about? Criminals? I'm going to be living in London for a year (I leave January of next year) and am definitely looking forward to it. ;) I have dozens of friends in the UK and have never encountered anything like this. lol...

On the subject of Michael Savage, I do admit to occasionally listening to his radio show, not because I agree with him (I in fact disagree with about 90% of what he says) but because I find the man hilarious. Many of his views are so over-the-top, and the way he presents them, sometimes yelling at the top of his lungs and distorting the mike...often has me rolling on the floor in tears, holding my sides. :D I know Rush Limbaugh is a Mac user...I'm dying to know whether this guy is a Mac user or not. :D

of course what he says is wrong, and may even be offensive to the Jewish community, but putting our fingers in our ears and banning him from the country makes us just as bad as him. What are you scared of? You think he's going to convert people to his views by coming here? If that's what you think then you don't take much pride in this country, and that's offensive to me. 450,000 British Citizens died fighting Hitler, I don't think we're quite ready to become neo-Nazis yet.

You said it.

[remmy]

I do find a lot of hypocrisy in the British rules when it comes to speech. The prince's Nazi costume dress is ok, but the British press is always ridiculing Austria and Germany for jailing anyone who does the same thing. Now, michael whiner, has been banned because he defamed Ms Smith.

There's a lack of consistency there.

Pointless comparison, the Prince is a bit of an idiot, got ridiculed for dressing up as a Nazi by everyone. He could not of been prevented entering the UK if he is a Prince who resides here, and hardly goes around voicing is opinion on extreme views.

[Iscariot]

but another part of me thinks it's not up to the government to decide who gets to speak

It shouldn't be. Freedom of speech needs to be a protected right everywhere.

[KingYaba]

I doubt this lawsuit will go anywhere. With that said banning Dr. Savage is wrong for reasons already stated in this thread.

[skunk]

Anyone should be free to make fools of themselves anywhere they please.

[mactastic]

Every person on the planet should be allowed into the UK and allowed to speak. The existence of this list is another example of our government telling us we cannot be trusted to make up our own minds. I for one am sick of being treated like a child by the likes of Jacqui Smith.

As much as I despise his position on a large number of subjects I hope Michael Savage both sues and wins.+1

Better to allow these kind of idiots to run their mouths and expose themselves for what they are than to make martyrs out of them, and thus promote their cause.

[Don't panic]

never been a fan of proscription lists.
especially when it actually works in favor of the proscribed (publicity, amplification of message)

not that this is unusual or extreme by any stretch: every country (and even single counties/cities) have lists of "undesirable" individuals who are not welcome to come, or are forced to leave. Always happened under any regime.

there are tons of people that cannot get visiting visas to come to the US.
should they all sue the US? and win?
I suppose the idea is that you have a say about who you admit in your own house.

[iBlue]

:confused: What are you talking about? Criminals? I'm going to be living in London for a year (I leave January of next year) and am definitely looking forward to it. ;) I have dozens of friends in the UK and have never encountered anything like this. lol...
Then you haven't lived here to watch little personal freedoms start to vanish. I've only been here (almost) 3 years and in that time I've observed the government control tightening up. We are being treated like criminals and children and it's frickin annoying. I imagine [just like me] once you're here for a while that starry-eyed adoration will start to diminish. Every place has its perks and pitfalls.

edit: Errr, I think I might have misread what that quote (and you) were getting at. :o I think the above still stands though, at least as a warning for what you're stepping into. :p

[garybUK]

Then you haven't lived here to watch little personal freedoms start to vanish. I've only been here (almost) 3 years and in that time I've observed the government control tightening up. We are being treated like criminals and children and it's frickin annoying. I imagine [just like me] once you're here for a while that starry-eyed adoration will start to diminish. Every place has its perks and pitfalls.

edit: Errr, I think I might have misread what that quote (and you) were getting at. :o I think the above still stands though, at least as a warning for what you're stepping into. :p

Well, you know, if you don't like it there's always a way out.......

[iBlue]

Well, you know, if you don't like it there's always a way out.......

:rolleyes: That is HARDLY what I am trying to say. And yes, I am well aware of that. Thanks for the gratuitous 'love it or leave it' comment though.

[skunk]

Well, you know, if you don't like it there's always a way out.......

Uncalled for, inappropriate and inhospitable.

[iBlue]

Uncalled for, inappropriate and inhospitable.

Not to mention complacent in the worst way. Blind acceptance is not my cup of tea.

[CarlisleUnited]

Well, you know, if you don't like it there's always a way out.......

So you honestly think it is OK for the government to take away our freedom of speech? The fact that our police force is horribly corrupt? The fact that the government has destroyed the value of our currency? What about the governments plans to monitor ALL internet usage in this country? Seems to go against our right of privacy doesn't it?

[garybUK]

What i was trying to say is why should it be acceptable for people to come and expect our society to bend to fit their needs? When we goto other places we have to live as they do.

Granted this is good as it encourages diversity, which I am all for! but when people threaten our way of life then they should be stopped.

IF i went to a country, which I HAVE done, and didn't like how things were done, i came back home.... simple as.

I'm not being hostile at all, your all very short sighted.

[CarlisleUnited]

What i was trying to say is why should it be acceptable for people to come and expect our society to bend to fit their needs? When we goto other places we have to live as they do.

There shouldn't be any bending, freedom of speech is a human right, we can't just ignore it because we don't like what he is saying. That's just like saying you have the right to a fair trial, if we like you enough to give you one. Seriously you can't just go round saying he is not welcome and I don't understand how governments can get away with it

[iBlue]

What i was trying to say is why should it be acceptable for people to come and expect our society to bend to fit their needs? When we goto other places we have to live as they do.

Granted this is good as it encourages diversity, which I am all for! but when people threaten our way of life then they should be stopped.

IF i went to a country, which I HAVE done, and didn't like how things were done, i came back home.... simple as.

I'm not being hostile at all, your all very short sighted.

So you didn't just direct that "if you don't like it, leave" comment at me because I'm an immigrant who expressed dissatisfaction with government restrictions on our lives? I'm a permanent resident here and I actually care about what happens in Britain. I'd hate to lose the ability to complain with the rest.

[Peterkro]

People are refused admission to the UK for all sorts of reasons,the major ones are being poor and having the wrong colour skin. If this dick wants to say whatever he wants that's fine by me but am I worried about his freedom to enter the UK, no, he's a rich white american,***** him.

[Thomas Veil]

How about a compromise here between those who say "let him in" and those who say "keep him out"?

The real fear here is that he will spread his hatred around -- raise the level of anger, prejudice and hostility around the country. Basically, that he will get followers, like he has in this country.

Well, perhaps he should be let in and allowed to say whatever he wants...but not in the media. Not at rallies. Not at public gatherings like book signings. He wants to spew his evil thoughts, fine...let him do it sitting across a restaurant table with one of his friends; but not on the airwaves, where he can encourage hatred among thousands of weak-minded people all at the same time.

Yes, I know that the media will pursue him, because of who he is. But I'd say the rule should be: you say "Good morning, lovely day," in front of a camera, you're fine; you talk hate speech with a friend at a bar, fine; you combine them and talk hate speech in front of a camera that you know is going to a nationwide audience, you're violating hate speech laws and you're goin' to jail, buddy.

Frankly, I think it'd be fun, because despite his best efforts, he probably wouldn't be able to keep that ugly motor-mouth of his quiet, and he'd land his ass in jail.

[SactoGuy18]

What I find interesting is that even I as a conservative find him WAY too xenophobic for my own good taste.

ESPN Radio's Colin Cowherd said it correctly: myopia in terms of personal views, whether in sports or politics, is a terrible idea. And Weiner's myopia ends up turning off too many people.

[Queso]

What i was trying to say is why should it be acceptable for people to come and expect our society to bend to fit their needs? When we goto other places we have to live as they do.

Granted this is good as it encourages diversity, which I am all for! but when people threaten our way of life then they should be stopped.

IF i went to a country, which I HAVE done, and didn't like how things were done, i came back home.... simple as.

I'm not being hostile at all, your all very short sighted.
You are missing the point. Those complaining about this list and other warning signs of oppression are the ones wanting to safeguard the country's value system. It is the current government that is trying to bend society to fit their needs.

[mactastic]

but when people threaten our way of life then they should be stopped.
Not being British, perhaps you could enlighten me. What is the one homogenous way of life in your country?

[Kardashian]

Well, you know, if you don't like it there's always a way out.......

Really uncalled for.

iBlue might not be from the UK but she's a darn lot nicer than some people who are from here and post on this forum.

I'd gladly leave, though. :)

..I'd say the rule should be: you say "Good morning, lovely day," in front of a camera, you're fine; you talk hate speech with a friend at a bar, fine; you combine them and talk hate speech in front of a camera that you know is going to a nationwide audience, you're violating hate speech laws and you're goin' to jail, buddy.

Frankly, I think it'd be fun, because despite his best efforts, he probably wouldn't be able to keep that ugly motor-mouth of his quiet, and he'd land his ass in jail.

I like your way of thinking.

Also, let him be interviewed by homosexuals, blacks and Jews.

On another note, does anyone else know what he said about Autistic children and their parents?

Oh. my. G-d. I don't know how he sleeps.

[Gelfin]

And Weiner's myopia ends up turning off too many people.

Weiner's myopia ends up turning on far too many people.

[BoyBach]

Great!

As well as some of my taxes being used to bail out the criminally incompetent bankers, now some of it will be winging its way across the Atlantic to compensate some nobody f*ckwit when he inevitably wins his defamation case.

Cheers Jackboot Jacqui, you're worth every bloody penny that you (legally) claim. :rolleyes:

[CorvusCamenarum]

Weiner's myopia ends up turning on far too many people.

If he had to hold his tongue, he'd have to catchup on his mouth-running eventually. And I'm sure he'd relish every minute of it.

[Macky-Mac]

I read that he hasn't been to the UK in 20 years and has no plans travel there in the future.....how bizarre!

This reminds me that George Galloway was recently banned from entering Canada where he was scheduled to give a speech. There was talk of groups of supporters joining him to march to the US-Canada border to demand that he be allowed to enter.....I wonder whatever happened with that?

[kastenbrust]

I read that he hasn't been to the UK in 20 years and has no plans travel there in the future.....how bizarre!

This reminds me that George Galloway was recently banned from entering Canada where he was scheduled to give a speech. There was talk of groups of supporters joining him to march to the US-Canada border to demand that he be allowed to enter.....I wonder whatever happened with that?

he got a go on Big Brother.

[Sehnsucht]

Then you haven't lived here to watch little personal freedoms start to vanish. I've only been here (almost) 3 years and in that time I've observed the government control tightening up. We are being treated like criminals and children and it's frickin annoying. I imagine [just like me] once you're here for a while that starry-eyed adoration will start to diminish. Every place has its perks and pitfalls.

edit: Errr, I think I might have misread what that quote (and you) were getting at. :o I think the above still stands though, at least as a warning for what you're stepping into. :p

Yeah, maybe just a little. But it's quite alright... :p

Where are you originally from? I'm guessing "from somewhere else", since I've never heard a Brit say "frickin". :D :D

Better to allow these kind of idiots to run their mouths and expose themselves for what they are than to make martyrs out of them, and thus promote their cause.

Anyone should be free to make fools of themselves anywhere they please.

+2

[iBlue]

You are missing the point. Those complaining about this list and other warning signs of oppression are the ones wanting to safeguard the country's value system. It is the current government that is trying to bend society to fit their needs.
Thank you, yes.

Where are you originally from? I'm guessing "from somewhere else", since I've never heard a Brit say "frickin". :D

Native Californian. :cool: I put the word like in places it doesn't belong and say dude as often as possible too. :D My language has become very hybrid.

[Counterfit]

From the 2 radio recordings I've heard I couldn't listen past the first minute. He's a disgusting human being.

A few years back, I tried reading one of his books. I didn't even make it past the foreword.

[63dot]

Free speech is important and protected, but not to the level of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater where there is no fire.

Savage, at some point, has become just that. Telling people they are sodomists and that they should die of AIDS is reasonably seen as inciting violence. Sometimes the people who preach hate can be as dangerous as those who physically act on it. Hitler did not personally kill millions of Jews, and Manson did not murder victims of the Manson family, but both incited the violence through a steady diet of hate.

I am glad that a potentially dangerous man like Savage is banned.

[Eraserhead]

From what I've heard Savage seems to be inciting racial hatred which is illegal in the UK (and that is a good decision IMO). That law was made so under the conservatives I believe.

[63dot]

From what I've heard Savage seems to be inciting racial hatred which is illegal in the UK (and that is a good decision IMO). That law was made so under the conservatives I believe.

He has also spouted religious hatred, against Muslims for instance, and hatred towards gay people.

Heck, he got so into the hate speech thing that he hates most of his fellow conservatives, especially "Lush" Limbaugh or "Flush" Limbaugh as he likes to call him.

[solvs]

Oh. my. G-d. I don't know how he sleeps.

Probably like a baby, on a big pile of money. Sadly because he thinks he's right and doing good (or at least ok with doing what he does), and people like that sleep fine never questioning themselves, and rich because others feel the same way and are comforted by someone else espousing their terrible views.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Part of me respects the laws of the UK, which I understand to be different, but also feel the need to speak out against, as I would if an Arab country were banning him for other reasons as we tend to get mad about (though unlike, say, a homosexual, he actually has a choice whether he's a loudmouthed jerk or not, vs a gay person who has no choice but to be gay, even if they have to keep it to themselves in an Islamic fundamentalist society). I hate the guy passionately, and everything he stands for, but fully support his right to speech here in this country because that is the way our society is supposed to be set up to be. But at the same time, you do have a responsibility with that right. Inciting hatred in others is a dangerous thing, and no matter how popular, he has gone over that line and been fired or at least censored by his own station(s) in the past, which is legal because he is an employee and has to live by their guidelines. To have a gov ban you because of speech alone though, no matter how vile. I don't know, I don't like it either. Then again, if some nut listens to him and shoots up a church or a few cops, as has happened, does he share any of the responsibility?

I wonder though if he ever had even wanted to go there, or if anyone would even want him to be there.

[63dot]

Probably like a baby, on a big pile of money. Sadly because he thinks he's right and doing good (or at least ok with doing what he does), and people like that sleep fine never questioning themselves, and rich because others feel the same way and are comforted by someone else espousing their terrible views.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Part of me respects the laws of the UK, which I understand to be different, but also feel the need to speak out against, as I would if an Arab country were banning him for other reasons as we tend to get mad about (though unlike, say, a homosexual, he actually has a choice whether he's a loudmouthed jerk or not, vs a gay person who has no choice but to be gay, even if they have to keep it to themselves in an Islamic fundamentalist society). I hate the guy passionately, and everything he stands for, but fully support his right to speech here in this country because that is the way our society is supposed to be set up to be. But at the same time, you do have a responsibility with that right. Inciting hatred in others is a dangerous thing, and no matter how popular, he has gone over that line and been fired or at least censored by his own station(s) in the past, which is legal because he is an employee and has to live by their guidelines. To have a gov ban you because of speech alone though, no matter how vile. I don't know, I don't like it either. Then again, if some nut listens to him and shoots up a church or a few cops, as has happened, does he share any of the responsibility?

I wonder though if he ever had even wanted to go there, or if anyone would even want him to be there.

In 34 states, we have the Model Penal Code that regulates criminal behavior including hate crimes and inciting riots. It is a moderate, balanced set of laws looking at crime in a fairly liberal and forgiving manner.

Some states, like California, and some nations (common law nations like England) have a slightly stricter criminal laws. If a person is likely (more likely than not in a preponderance of the evidence) to incite violence on a person, persons, or any identifiable group, that is an assault. Any assault is a movement, gesture, or speech that can cause one to feel a danger of imminent touching, verbal attack, or violent physical attack from that said action. Battery is if the perp actually strikes or shoots the victim.

If you listen to Michael Savage, we are not talking about freedom of speech. We are talking about a man who, through a public medium like radio, is rallying some for violence against others. In the Bay Area, there have been cases where the defendant attacking a gay person got away with it because they got their idea from a person/leader who brainwashed them with hate speech. Under this theory of legal defenses, somebody so brainwashed to commit violence is protected under the McNaughton Rule which transfers the responsibility against the person who was said to commit the assault, battery, robbery, burglary, arson, rape, or kidnapping.

McNaughton may not completely absolve a perp of a crime, but can greatly reduce a sentence. Also in the Bay Area, many years back, Patty Hearst was apprehended by police and arrested. When the trial went through great scrutiny, it was found that she was not fully responsible for her crimes. She got brainwashed and it's why she walks the street today.

When Michael Savage says a gay person should die of AIDS, or that if a gay person mistakes you for one of them and hits on you in a bar, Mr. Savage's answer to stomping them to death because they are an abomination is not exactly asking for a peaceful resolution (KGO Radio, Michael Savage Show, San Francisco, California). This and other violent outbursts is probably why Mr. Savage is not on KGO anymore. And believe it or not, he was much more moderate then!

[yg17]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/19/733129/-Savage:-MSNBC-would-have-been-putting-Jews-in-Death-Camps-for-Hitler

After reading that, I'd say the ban is 100% justified. I say we exile him to some deserted island in the arctic circle and ban him from entering the US too.

[Zombie Acorn]

Let them speak and ignore them. They get more media attention this way.

[mactastic]

I agree with allowing this guy to keep speaking, and thus prove himself to be the moronic imbecile that he so clearly is. Banning people like this only serves to inflame their sense of persecution, and gives them a leg to stand on, small as that leg may be.

The funny thing (funny weird, not funny ha-ha) is that last I heard, Mr. Weiner is the top-rated radio talker in oh-so-liberal San Francisco.

Maybe we really do want to keep those SF values from spreading...

[63dot]

I agree with allowing this guy to keep speaking, and thus prove himself to be the moronic imbecile that he so clearly is. Banning people like this only serves to inflame their sense of persecution, and gives them a leg to stand on, small as that leg may be.



I don't think it's a "leg" he is standing on. ;)