There are limits even to free speech (hate radio)

Portland Tribune ^ | 03/21/03 | John Calhoun

[Andy from Beaverton]

There are limits even to free speech  (hate radio)

   In January, Oregon experienced two violent hate crimes. In Medford, a man from India was beaten because the attackers believed that he was an Arab. In Portland, blacks were targeted in a night of random attacks.
   Oregon has a history of hate crimes reaching back decades. The most notorious case in recent years was in 1988, when Skinheads murdered Mulegeta Seraw, an Ethiopian immigrant. In that case, a court awarded the victim’s family compensation from the White Aryan Resistance’s Tom Metzger, who had incited the Skinheads with his violent, racist rhetoric.
   Michael Savage, a radio talk-show host on KXL (750 AM), is continuing this tradition of hate and racism. On a daily basis he denigrates gays, Muslims, women, Mexicans, the poor and most immigrants. He also advocates violence against some of these groups.
   Last May, in a reference to controlling illegal immigrants, he asked, ”Do we have a government anymore? If we had a government, we’d blow them out of the desert with airplanes.”
   Discussing the homeless in April 2002, he said, “In a sane society, they would be beaten up, thrown in a van, and thrown in a work camp.” An article published in the San Francisco Chronicle included this excerpt from one of Savage’s shows: “We need racist stereotypes right now of our enemy in order to encourage our warriors to kill the enemy.”
   Three National Guardsmen, recently returned from service in the Middle East, were responsible for the attack in Medford.
   It’s impossible to tell whether Michael Savage is responsible for any specific hate crimes, but some would argue that it is only a matter of time. This raises the question of what a responsible community can do. Supporters of Michael Savage claim that it is his free-speech right to say what he wants on the air. They say that if we seek to remove him from being broadcast, we are advocating censorship. Besides, they say, Savage is just providing entertainment.
   Let’s be clear about one thing: Michael Savage is not entertainment. He is promoting a dangerous message of hate that is damaging to our community. However, he is on the air not because KXL is concerned about free speech but because the station manager believes that this kind of programming is profitable.
   KXL is in a ratings war with other radio stations, and Savage attracts listeners. Listeners attract advertisers. This makes money for KXL, which is owned by Paul Allen. That’s right, the owner of the Portland Trail Blazers is the No. 1 promoter of hate speech in the Pacific Northwest.
   Whether Michael Savage is on the air in Portland is not a free-speech issue for Paul Allen. It is a commercial issue. If Savage’s ratings dropped, do you think they’d be discussing First Amendment rights?
   You and I do not have the chance to broadcast our views three hours a day on a major radio station. Are we being censored because we do not have that access? If Savage were dropped by KXL, putting him in the same position as the rest of us, would that be censorship?
   Let us also keep in mind that in spite of what Savage’s supporters say, there are limits to free speech. As the courts ruled in the case against Tom Metzger, hate speech that leads to hate crime is not free.
   Challenging KXL’s broadcasts of Michael Savage is not an attack on free speech. Challenging Paul Allen’s sponsorship of the “Savage Nation” is in fact a celebration of those rights. Allen, KXL and the advertisers that finance these broadcasts need to hear that Portland wants no part of Michael Savage’s bigotry and hatred.
   John Calhoun is president of the board of the social services organization Neighborhood House and a member of the Coalition Against Hate Radio. He lives in Southwest Portland.

[Jhoffa_]

Wait a minute, I hate Michael Savage and I hate his stupid radio program. I have ripped him many times over it's total and complete lack of substance. But he does have a first amendment right to speak on the air.

He doesn't call for acts of violence against anyone. There's a big difference between saying something is wrong and should be illegal and/or the perpetrators should be punished than making a general purpose cry for violence against a particular group.

If they want to go down this road with Savage, think about the Byrd "dragging" campaign ad, or anything put forth by PETA or ELF. The "Hate speech" put forth by various congressmen and political leaders (Calypso Louie, Jessie Jackson and such come to mind) And how about the leftist press? Perhaps they should be censored for calling Jews murderers and killers and thus "inciting" violence against them?

No, no way. There's a clear line between inciting people to riot and expressing unpopular views on a subject. If anyone crossed it, it was the left a long time ago.

Till I hear Savage incite individuals to violence, I say he's clearly within the boundaries of the first amendment.

[Jhoffa_]

"Challenging KXL’s broadcasts of Michael Savage is not an attack on free speech."

I maintain that "Hate Crime" laws are an attack on the 14th Amendment.

[yoe]

You nailed it! Michael’s ""politically incorrect pissed speech" is sort of uncontrolled rage, he has the courage to tell it like it is. This son of immigrants loves his country, its constitution and is right fierce about it. That’s all; he is not a racist nor a hate monger – he IS totally Politically Incorrect and this offends the right people!

[Southern Federalist]

I have never listened Savage, but I would make two observations:

Just as I tell Leftists who say that "dissent is being repressed," free speech goes for all sides. Free speech means that the government does not prosecute you for the expression of political and other opinion. It does not mean that people have to agree with you, be respectful to you, provide you with a forum, or give you record contracts. So if there are people who despise and deplore Savage, they have the right to call him names, boycott radio stations and their sponsors, start Trash Savage websites, etc. Country fans have the same right to trash the Dixie Chicks. This is America. Go for it.

But we all need to keep an eye on what looks like an attempt to stretch the definition of incitement to violence to cover "hate speech," i.e., opinions Leftists disagree with. The contemporary Left acknowledges only two political possibilities: One possibility is agreeing with the Left that all the Jews in Israel should die, that Bush should choke to death on a pretzel, and Clarence Thomas should have a stroke. This is called caring for peace and respecting human rights. All other views are "hate."

The courts have historically defined incitement narrowly, and vigilance is in order against attempts from the Left to widen it.

[driftless]

Yes, that's what we need to do. Pass a lot more anti-hate laws so we can throw more people into jail and censor others for speaking their minds. Let's start with Jessica Lange who offered overseas that she hated the president. Let's throw her in jail, or at the very least, stop her from making any more pictures. Al Sharpton should certainly be doing jail time.

Once again the totalitarian left shows its true colors of trying to stifle free speech and stomp on people who do not agree with their lunatic leftism.

[Sofa King]

"Hate Radio" seems to be anything these communists don't agree with. I've never listened to Savage, and can't really form an opinion on him based on this article because they make the same claims about Limbaugh, and it's total BS. This is dangerous. This isn't just calling for boycotts, this is a serious attempt to undermine the 1st amendment.

[Publius6961]

Based on this article I would say Savage (who I have never listened to) is over the top.

Now there is a cogent, well thought out statement.
Obviously well-informed, too.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

Hate is not a crime but an emotion which is normal,therefore hate is a right.

[Jhoffa_]

They also deny equal protection under the law to victims of the same crimes.

To say we will punish "Bob" because he raped a blonde (which we have arbitrarily decided is a much worse crime than raping a red head) is to deny Red Heads equal protection and an equal expectation of justice under our law.

The motivations are unimportant and subjective, thus I expect that many "Hate Crimes" exist solely in the eye of the beholder.

[KC_for_Freedom]

Now there is a cogent, well thought out statement.

Well, I have listened to Savage, read his book too. He is not the easiest radio host, is often rude to callers, even sometimes callers who agree with him. He has never advocated violence or illegal activities, although sometimes he comes close to it with expressions like, "I can't say what I really think over the radio".

But he is well read, scholarly, and coherent when he takes on the left and their minions. In many ways he understands more what is at stake with the attacks on our way of life. He says radical Islam is on the rise, and they seek to make the world over in their interpretation of their bible. He is a voice that needs to be heard, and the fact that the left has sought to stop him, and boycott his sponsors is proof of that.

[TYVets]

I have listened to both Sen Dasshole & Savage.

Dasshole is a small hatefilled person.

Savage says what upsets him,,,, no mattier the party, the religon, the polictical view.

Savage is on the side of the United States Military,,,, Dasshole is only on Dasshole's side.