http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Savage_(commentator)
Posted on 05/10/2009 3:51:53 PM PDT by ReformationFan
Great Britain's decision to ban Michael Savage because of his "extreme views" marks a dark day in the history of free speech.
The shame should be particularly severe in a nation that gave birth to John Stuart Mill, the 19th century political philosopher whose writings so strongly advanced the cause of open dialogue.
Mill argued in his pivotal essay "On Liberty" that intolerance to hear opposing views amounts to an assertion that the politically correct view is infallible.
Doubting that any human view could be without error, Mill fought hard to convince readers of the importance of encouraging the expression of views they found distasteful.
Clearly, protecting the speech of those who agree with us misses the point, unless the British government has fallen so far from John Stuart Mill's defense of liberty that free speech is not to be tolerated simply to protect politically correct biases that can be advanced only if critics are silenced.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Thanks for posting, RF!
Let’s ask Rush.
Savage calls hatfilled mislims for what they are, hatefilled muslims driven by their religion of hate. And for that he has my support.
No problem, dynachrome. Gotta keep up the fight for the Doc.
Is he an expert on British immigration?
Or perhaps on American expatriotism?
Why would he need to be consulted? Does he know more than you?
The left will continue to define “extremism” downward until they have effectively muzzled anyone who doesn’t goose-step in perfect harmony.
I stand with Savage (even if I have a difficult time listening to him!).
Ask rush what exactly???
Like Doc Savage say’s
The First Amendment was written to protect “offensive” speech, not candy coated speech.
I’m with Savage all the way too. AND I have never heard him say anything to enduce acts of hateful viloence. Ever!
If you read the law (or whatever exactly it is) that is the justification for keeping Savage out of Britain, it states that they will not allow anyone in who might cause public disturbances by their mere presence.
Britain is afraid of its Muslim population; ditto for the rest of Europe. They don’t want to deal with riots and possible terrorist attacks.
You may not agree with it, but that is their real reason. The “hate speech” part is not what they are really concerned about.
This is a particularly foolish view in these dangerous times. But perhaps Rush is tired of his gig and would prefer to just golf and enjoy his millions. And being driven from the air waves by the government would provide him an obvious face saving way to achieve this.
This is sad since Rush almost single handedly helped the Republicans attain power. Too bad they disappointed him (and all the rest of us) so badly.
Playing devils advocate here for a minute:
JSM did not support anything absolutely if it violated his ‘harm’ principle. On the subject of free speech, he cites an example in his essay “on liberty” where he suggests it should be OK to print a pamphlet stating ‘corn dealers starve the poor’, wheras standing before an angry mob in front of a corn dealers house, and saying the same thing orally, should be proscribed for obvious reasons.
Perhaps the British Government is simply being over zealous in applying Mill’s ‘harm’ principle to the idea of letting Savage into Britain....
Back from sabbatical, are ya?
Hope you had some good days off!
I stand with Savage as well and I can't listen to him.
Rush Limbaugh??? ... employee of 0 M0t0rs? That Rush Limbaugh? Sean also.
0M writes the biggest chunk of their paychecks!
It is what it is.
Listen closely with a grain of salt next time. You'll notice it.
I dunno about that. First, this is happening in the UK, not the USA, so it doesn’t speak directly to any looming US policies. Frankly, I think you have an anxious British bureaucrat adding Savage to a list to appease Muslims, and any other terminally offended people in their electorate. Weak, yes, but it is born from weakness and cowardice.
Further, I think this is fantastic marketing for Savage and that he probably loves it.
As for Rush, he just signed an 8 year, $400 million dollar deal. He has nothing much to do with this situation. And if he is tired, he has 400 million reasons to get up every weekday and do what he does.
That's not exactly true!
I have heard him quote several portions of the queeran that CLEARLY call for MURDER.
Question from one ignorant Brit...
Who IS Savage anyway?
Savage advocates jailing people for “sedition”, but he cries and sues when anyone says anything about him. What a 1st Amendment hero! /sarc
If he was a conservative, it might concern me. But he is just a clown.
Sharpton DID incite violence, which resulted in a number of deaths in NYC... So is he still welcome in Great Britain?
And is it only foreigners who are banned? After all, there are LOTS of muslim clerics in Great Britain who have called for violence, terrorism, AND the murder of westerners and jews.
Mark
Britain is afraid of its Muslim population; ditto for the rest of Europe. They don’t want to deal with riots and possible terrorist attacks. You may not agree with it, but that is their real reason. The “hate speech” part is not what they are really concerned about.
Indirectly the reason why I support Savage here, and why I think all right-thinking people should defend Savage, distateful as he is at times. Stifling vocal opinion through law is tyranny. If truth or opinion stirs up riots, better to face it down and pull together for individual freedom, self-direction and civil discourse. If the culture of Islam can't handle civil discourse, then it needs to go live somewhere else.
Britain is screwing up big time if it submits to Islam because it will end up screwing the world. Islam on its own cannot function in the modern world because it stings itself into self-absorbed barbarism and remains 6th century and hostile to glorying in God's world. For its people to get along, Islam needs what Judeo-Christianity has produced; Judeo-Christianity has zero use for Islam or any of its tenets. Islam forces this into being a religious conflict. Islam needs to deal on the modern world's terms if it wants to enjoy and partake of the modern world's glories. Otherwise -- reject any way possible with extreme prejudice.
With Islam and Mohameddans, it sure wouldn't be the first time. They've been pains in the world's ass for centuries.
It's too bad that the 1968 Daly administration's police departments "civil unrest" training hasn't been packaged for resale.
THEY knew how to deal with an unruly mob, as seen at the 1968 dem convention in Chicago. The Brits should show the news coverage as training material for the police. So should the French...
Mark
Thanks Dynachrome for pinging us. I stand with Savage...even when I can't stand him...
Wow! Rush and Sean are sponsored by GM? That couldn’t mean that their views are compromised, could it?
There are many things to listen for on radio shows, particularly: the absence of stories of note.
Ask him why people who cannot even capitalize his name start threads about his every utterance!
A wiener.
He is one of a handful of American conservative radio talk show hosts with a decent listenership. Mileage will vary, but: Michael Savage is somewhat unhinged angry man who gets a lot of what's infuriating and frustrating about the insanity of the left, and he whines and yells and shouts about it in a way that can be cathartic for some folks. It's his style and he's very aggressive and unpolished about his gut opinions. I have rarely listened to him except as a last resort (and even then, have sometimes dumped him for a fishing or car repair show!), though I've given his show dozens of chances. Yet I'd have to say he's about dead-on balls accurate (a technical term) at least half the time. He's very emotional and volatile and often pretty irrational about weird stuff that he thinks listeners care about.
Just one FReepers' opinion. If you're familiar with Mark Levin (and I wish Levin woudln't even bother to refer to or reference Savage on his show), Savage is the very poor-in-spirit's Mark Levin. Mark Levin is possibly THE best talk radio host on the American airwaves right now because he is kind of what Savage wishes he could be, I guess.
For example, Levin takes a caller who talks about the issues of the whole environmentalis global warming carbon cap swindle, and he agrees with the caller. He takes the topic and rolls with it denouncing the "carbon footprint" nonsense for a few sentences, and pretty soon he's yelling "I tell ya what, huh? How about if I take my carbon footprint and put it up their butts, HUH??? EHHHHH?" (louder) "HOW ABOUT IF I DID THAT?" and you can hear ten million people across America yelling at their radios, "YEAH!" in soulmate agreement, each one thinking of ten dozen friends or family who would yell the same thing and they wish they were listening, too. Levin is that kind of host.
Yet Levin is a constitutional scholar and a sensible Godly man in every way. He's a joy to hear. His book "Liberty and Tyranny" is a national treasure.
Boy are you naive. Are you suggesting that this woman in England just woke up one morning and decided he should be on the list???? She has most likely never heard his program.
Message to Strawman: Get a brain! ASAP!!!
Hint:
Congressman Demagogue on the Today Show:
"Even England has banned this hate monger. All civilized countries regulate hate speech. In this global world we cannot allow the United States to be a country in which hate groups intimidate and suppress hard working minorities ... blah blah blah"
Get the picture?
If you listen closely you'll hear them tiptoeing around the tulips.
The silence by Rush and Sean and the dismissive attitude of O'Reilly toward Savage are numbing. The old saying "what comes around, goes around" may be applicable to them one day. If the "Fairness Doctrine" bites them in the butt down the road, whining to save their own skins later down the pike will fall on my deaf ears. If they aren't supporting the First Amendment (and Mr. Savage's rights) loud and clear TODAY, tomorrow may be too late. Rusty Humphries has it right.
• Savage Banned in Britain Hear the double standard yourself in Britain Rusty was almost arrested over > And Rusty's investigation at a U.K. Mosque shown on Hannity and Colmes
I never go anywhere I can't smoke and carry a handgun (that seems to be my own house these days, but I'm pretty sure even that will go away shortly).
Thanks for posting, RF.
“Hitler in a headscarf” BUMP!
HOORAY Michael Savage!
HOORAY Michael Savage!
HOORAY Michael Savage!
The said truth indeed. Theodore Dalrymple was there when the death of Salman Rushdie was called for. At a street meeting, a man was exhorting "Kill Rushdie". Rushdie had written a novel against Islam. A man appealed to a policeman to charge the man under the hate laws. The policeman used the classic police phrase now in vogue in Britain- "I am trying to control the situation". He was asked again about charges. Herewith:
"F.... off or I will arrest YOU."
It should also be noted that Michael Savage had not even mentioned going to England. There is little doubt that it is to add "balance" to the actual few and rare Islamists that are banned from England.
The self serving mentality of the bureaucrat once more.
Thanks for your coherent and reasoned reply.
I listen to Rush for US political news and Savage for more international themes.
Mostly, I check the internet for items that both will discuss that day.
With two “conservative” voices in play in conflict, I wonder what Reagan would say.
“It should also be noted that Michael Savage had not even mentioned going to England. There is little doubt that it is to add “balance” to the actual few and rare Islamists that are banned from England.
The self serving mentality of the bureaucrat once more.”
Judging from the backlash from her playing the “moral equivalency” game so popular with lefties, I think she picked the wrong talk show host.
I read a few weeks back that Savage has been banned in Sudan. It’s beginning to snowball.
Our enemies know and as far as I know he is the only talk show host who has spoken out against them with such zeal that he is a target of the leading cause of terrorism in the world, the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Iran gets in on the Michael Savage bashing.
Not in decades has a media personality taken on America's foreign enemies the way Dr. Savage has. While other talk show hosts deserve our thanks for outstanding support of our military and their mission nevertheless national talk show hosts are lacking in taking on the enemy of America the way Dr. Savage has. IMO. A few tepid remarks aimed directly at radical Muslims by the other talk show hosts from time to time just don't cut it.
If there are other radio personnel targeted by the Islamic Republic of Iran or other radical Islamist enemies I am not aware of them.
I think Savage deserves the recognition despite his severest critics.
Well at least the tyrants in Iran have a cute little name for him, Dajjal. A little classier than the Savage-haters here in the states, like $#&^! *(#%^! Yeah, like those.
Wow, the leading cause of terrorism in the world, the Islamic Republic of Iran, has taken offense at our own Michael Savage!
What other talk show host can boast that?
Ask Rush why he won't speak out in support of free speech for a fellow conservative talk show host, ask why Rush was silent when MSNBC unceremoniously threw Savage off the air, ask why Rush was silent when La Raza and their minions attacked Savage and protested in front of Savage's radio station, ask why Rush was silent when the S.F. Board of Supervisors passed a gay-engineered resolution against Savage, ask why Rush was silent when CAIR with the help of Media Matters attacked Savage and called for a boycott of all Savage's sponsors claiming Savage slandered Islam, ask why Rush was silent on the subject of autism when Savage boldly brought up the fraud aspects of it, and now ask why Rush continues to be silent when liberals in Britain ban a conservative for his views when Rush shares the same ones albeit silently.
You will never hear Rush or Sean attack La Raza, CAIR or the Pink Mafia, Savage does it with abandon on a daily basis.
Why “must” I support him?
Are you somehow under the impression that the subjects living in the UK have the same right to free speech that the citizens in the US do?
Why should this guy get better treatment that the people living there?
What did he do, in a concrete way, about freedom of speech abuses in the UK prior to his own recent issue? Or is it only of interest when his ox is being gored?
If you think this has all magically occurred since Obama was elected, you could not be more wrong. England has been traveling down this road for a very long time.
So, what has he done for the English?
That will take you to his web site. He has a lot of good things to say and he is entertaining if you care for his sort of platform. I have listened and though I don’t agree with the way he says things, I usually agree with the subject matter.
Does that mean that they now work for us?
Rush will never mention Savage because they have two different syndicators who are big rivals. Rush only cares about people that are in his close radio business circle.
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.