Posted on 03/08/2008 5:53:01 AM PST by Kid Shelleen
A federal judge said Friday she's inclined to dismiss a lawsuit by conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage against a Muslim rights group that reprinted his attacks against Islam and called for an advertising boycott.
Savage sued the Council on American-Islamic Relations in December after the organization posted excerpts from an Oct. 29 broadcast in which he called the Quran a "hateful little book ... a document of slavery" and said, "I don't want to hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it."
His lawsuit accused the group of violating Savage's copyright by posting more than four minutes of excerpts on its Web site without his permission
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
What can one expect from todays judges? Many are pro islamic sympathizers who just don’t understand just judgement.
I’ve been watching this suit since it was filed. I have to say, KS, that from what I have seen of the pleadings, I think the judge may well be right.
I have little enough respect for judges these days, but Savage went on a public rant against these folks. Again, CAIR are not my favorite organization, either, but under a fair use doctrine, he uttered these words attacking Muslims. They have a perfect right to copy his words and challenge them in self-defense. You have a right to public defense against defamatory words uttered by another.
“You have a right to public defense against defamatory words uttered by another.”
>>defame - To damage the reputation, character, or good name of by slander or libel.<<
I dont’t think that expressing facts about Ilsma and the CAIR organization could damge it any further than the association it already maintains with the death cult.
Make sure to read some of the comments under the article. They represent SF’s finest minds.
Well, I truly hate to say it but, if Savage was right, then Free Republic would be gone. The various content sources that have attacked FR from quoting have attacked the ongoing practice of excerpting their content rather than any in particular article of content of controversy. If a suit of this sort were to be successful, then people who said things they wanted to take back, could do this by suppressing the reproduction of their comments via copyrights. This would stifle free speech in a way we are familiar with Democrats attempting but failing.
The TRUTH should never be ‘judged’ defamatory, never, never, never!
The Muslims are slowly taking over this country just like they did in parts of Europe.
What can one expect from todays judges?
It should be: What can one expect from todays radical liberal California judges?
Interesting. Isn't that what they were trying to do to Savage?
What if it were your wife's or daughters reputation that were under attack. Would you feel the same way. Would you allow that to stand because it is subject to "copyright."
You are making a judgment that Savage is right and your would be defamer is wrong, but that is not a presumption that can be made ahead of time.
Savage took is argument public and in the public domain it is, even if he is right in the end.
Looks like Michael Savage has already snookered CAIR, doesn't it! He is a genius!
Dr. Weiner has a history of filing lawsuits that get tossed.
Good publicity for him though.
IF Savage didn't have the money I might sympathize, but he's wealthy from book sales and radio, and I consider it pretty sleazy that he's financing this lawsuit 100% with other people's money. He said he's raised $125,000 so far and much (not all) of that is spent. Then he really lashed into the listeners for not contributing more.
I think anyone paying his legal bills for him is a sap.
No they were defending themselves against what Savage said by quoting him. I don't like CAIR, but when Savage uttered his claims on the public airways the debate is in the public forum and CAIR has a right to defend itself there. That IS freedom of speech and the press.
...and as a side benefit has also exposed the SFgate's bias, since they deleted all the pro-Savage comments. note-Dinosaur Media-bonus!
I understand that. I was wondering if they were trying to shut him down.
Exactly so.
Here’s an idiotic comment from EDDIE at the link to the same basic story on Drudge:
“”DKEST1 wrote: You may not like Savage, but you should be worried about this terrorist front group CAIR.” OMG - you’re a George Walker Bush wannabe, at the very least, another coward spreading lies. TRUTH - not all Muslims are terrorist... just like Not all Christians good people. Case in Point, George Walker Bush is neither a good christian nor muslim and yet, look how we illegally invaded a country over LIES - Where is Osama Bin Laden? Why has he been captured? Where is Al Quada, why haven’t they been shut down? Lies, lies and more fracking lies. I’m more worried about Christian religious subverting my rights then I am about Terrorism. You should worry too - becuase your phones are tapped just as much as mine are. Your email is being read, just like mine.”
“Lawyers for the group said its use of Savage’s comments to generate criticism was permitted by copyright law and protected by the First Amendment.”
They are awfully quick to employ the very rights they seek to destroy, aren’t they?
I vote for expelling them from the civilized world. Let them steep in their own flaming cauldron of Islam until their adherents realize that time didn’t stop in the seventh century. But...that’s just my opinion...
To repeat the bidding, this was Savage’s lawsuit to shut them down. My view is that Savage can make what political commentary he likes about anyone on the airways. My view is also that those who are attacked have the right to quote his words, at length if need be, and point out his errors. THAT is freedom of speech and of the press.
I think you can also boycott speakers, as long as you’re not the government.
You scare me. I don't actually care whether CAIR has rights, except for one tiny little thing. If the Constitution does not protect their right to free speech, how does it protect my right to free speech.
Is the plaintiff named as Michael Weiner?
“I have little enough respect for judges these days, but Savage went on a public rant against these folks. Again, CAIR are not my favorite organization, either, but under a fair use doctrine, he uttered these words attacking Muslims. They have a perfect right to copy his words and challenge them in self-defense. You have a right to public defense against defamatory words uttered by another.”
I think the point of the lawsuit isn’t that CAIR taped his words and used them in public. It is that CAIR taped his words, changed the context and used it as an advertisement to boycott him.
Take a guess.
No reason to be scared... I support the Constitution, as do you. However, it strikes me that CAIR has been proven complicit in the larger Islamic jihad against the rest of the civilized world. In addition, they rush to employ the very freedoms we provide, as tools to advance their cause, which is to ultimately destroy those very freedoms under the guise if Islam.
I do not believe we should be obligated to provide our enemies with the tools of our own demise.
My personal conviction is that Islam is stuck in the seventh century, enslaved by a theocratic doctrine that suffocates the individual freewill under someone’s notion of ‘right and proper’. As such, I don’t see this as a free speech issue. I see it as a clash of cultures; the latest battleground in a 1400 year old war of social/political ideologies.
We would not have tolerated this kind of tactic from the Nazis in the 40’s, nor from the Soviets, later. Why should we tolerate it from the Islamics?
Free speech is one thing. Continuing to feed the dog that bites you is just stupid.
Actually we did tolerate a lot from the Nazi's in the 30's, so I would not make this a point of honor. Second, WFB used freedom of speech very effectively to ridicule the Soviets and their academic sycophants. It was the latter who attempted to deny freedom of speech to those who believed that communism was an evil.
So no, I don't have any problem with CAIR saying what they want to say, so long as the rest of us have the right to say what we want to say.
Leni
Unfortunately, we have rule of law in this country. Either there is a legal principal defending freedom of speech or there is not. This judge is not free to deny freedom of speech to one group while granting it to another, however despicable that group may be. So long as we have the freedom to point out how despicable that group in fact is, I have no problem, actually.
Michael should have hired Disney layers....NO ONE copies their stuff and gets away with it!!!
I think you have misunderstood the lawsuit. Savage is suing CAIR for taking his comment out of context and using it to damage his career, while using the recording to raise money without the permission of Savage.
Take a look at what these attorneys have to say about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjy-sWJCZxA
What’s the pedigree of this judge — Clintonista per chance? Someone ought to write a book about the anti-Constitutional havoc wrought on the country by Clinton appointees.
This still isn't a tough call. Savage is free to say what he will but also has to accept that what he says might upset people. This can have consequences. It is not a defamation because he said and means the things that they claim he did. Even if they were out of context. The statement in this clip is plain with or without context. And frankly, not all that shocking or anti-Muslim. We as Republicans do this all of the time.. do we ask Michelle Obama's permission to quote her saying she has never been really proud to be an American? Heck no. Savage is just way out on a limb with this and deserves to have it cut off underneath of him, at least as far as using copyright to suppress the process of reacting and responding to perceived defamatory speech. We all would lose desperately if he were to be able to win.
Yes he is fighting for his livelihood, and he should. But, not by taking away my rights thank you.
Doesn’t matter how it goes. We’ve already lost “freedom of speech”. Nothing a White Christian or Jew says or does counts any more, except as “hate speech”.
I think we all agree on that, for sure. The last thing we need is another lawyer welfare program! But like in the old ‘keep up with the Joneses’ days, we probably need about as many frivolous lawsuits as the Islamowackos have on the docket, just to keep them honest!
...but there is a good reason to keep the enemy around our same campfire, in case he’s “needed” ! and his calls to AlQaeda are much easier to wiretap when his house is next door!
“I like Michael Savage, but I suspect his claims here are a bit of a legal stretch. Also, last night his was blaming his listeners if he loses the lawsuit, because they haven’t all sent him money for the legal expenses.”
Are you telling me that you did not know that Savage is a money-hungry gnat that will use anything to raise money from his listeners? He has been doing this for years; nothing new. Even the most naive knows his MO. It is all about MONEY. he is outraged, he needs your money. Let’s not pretend he is fighting anyone’s war, he is fighting for his swelling pocket but he is so greedy; it is never enough.
By the way you defend them it is hard to tell.
What is hard to tell? That the 1st amendment only has meaning when it is protecting the speech of people saying things we don't like. Well, duh. That is sort of why we have it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.