MSNBC fires Savage after anti-gay remarks

Associated Press ^ | Jul. 7, 2003 01:00 PM

[sakic]

NEW YORK - MSNBC on Monday fired Michael Savage for anti-gay comments.

The popular radio talk show host who did a weekend TV show for the cable channel referred to an unidentified caller to his show Saturday as a "sodomite" and said he should "get AIDS and die."

[jlogajan]

I wasn't referring to a single remark made in the heat of the moment. I was referring to his body of work -- which sucks big time.

Although calling on someone to die, even if made in haste, reveals something about your character -- in Savage's case, it was no surprise.

[Libertina]

It seems the only way you'll understand the bigger picture is to get to the point you have no free speech rights at all. It might give you pause. On the other hand, perhaps not. So often, people do nothing until situations are so extreme that they are downtrodden.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Your statement makes about as much sense as seeing a wildfire coming, and instead of trying to put it out to save lives and property, welcoming it with open arms, maybe offering it some fuel.

That wild fire you speak of is really the only hope for Republican conservatives...It's a new world friend, we need to adapt, or be left behind in the scrapyard of history.

[First Amendment]

I honestly wonder if you can't see that you are arguing for a "right" that doesn't exist in the private sector. The government was not involved in ANY of the issues you bring up.

I believe she isn't arguing the point that Savage or anyone has the constitutional right to free speech on someone else's dime. The larger point is that the Gaystapo and thought police are gaining in power, and that shunning, social pressure, academic pressure, and so on are gaining momentum.

Just yesterday on FR there was an article about a Cal Poly student who was stopped from putting up a poster about a legitimate college-sponsored speech because the black activists didn't like it. The student was threatened with possible expulsion. He is fighting it, but this is the kind of shut-down of free speech which is happening more and more.

Did you know that in England not too long ago it became illegal to publicly use the word "homosexual"? It's too negative, the word "gay" has to be used. And now with the Supreme Court Justice saying that precedent or laws from other countries have to be taken into consideration when "interpreting" the Constitution, that type of speech restriction may be seen in a theatre near you soon.

People may say, "Oh, that can't happen here!" But would you have imagined ten or twenty years ago what is happening NOW?

[Libertina]

The governnment is we the people. And they have been very involved in our loss of free speech. "Hate" speech laws, protected monorities about whom you cannot comment, even the right to speak on campaign issues. You cannot see the forest because of this one tree.

[First Amendment]

It's a new world friend, we need to adapt, or be left behind in the scrapyard of history.

You mean Brave New World, just take some soma and watch the new feelie-movie. Social Darwinism. Old rape-victim advice - since it's inevitable, lie back and enjoy it. Change over to the winning side even if they are wrong. As I said a few posts ago, it's the same philosophy as the Vichy government - join the Nazis, since they're winning.

[weegee]

It's a new world friend, we need to adapt, or be left behind in the scrapyard of history.

If we concede all social points to the DNC, what's left to fight for? Fiscal conservatism?

Fiscal conservatism is a falicy if we support socialist programs and illegal immigration (which feeds off the programs without paying into them).

What should the Republican party stand for if we must change and move left?

[Cultural Jihad]

Perhaps so. As they say, hindsight is always 20-20.

[Libertina]

Thanks Pram. Your reply was well reasoned. So many on this thread are focusing on the specific firing issue, but not the overall picture which paints clearly the loss of our freedoms. I don't dare make jokes or comments like I used to. I self sensor, because at any time the protected minorities can discover a sudden "insensitivity" and claim abuse. It is frightening what they can do. I just keep thinking Animal Farm, Animal Farm.

[Cultural Jihad]

If we concede all social points to the DNC, what's left to fight for? Fiscal conservatism?

Joe is a paleocon, and is being facetious. Even so, no one is conceding anything. MSNBC has their 1st Amendment right to decide content and personality, while we have no 1st Amendment right to hear Michael Savage on MSNBC. It really is that simple.

[justshe]

If groups you don't approve of have the government sanctioned right to speak out, then so do you.

What I see occuring, often, is the battle-cry for 'free speech' for ONLY those issues one approves of. It doesn't work that way. You may not like the message, but you should be defending the RIGHT to 'speak' that message. If the message you don't like is silenced....then YOUR message can be silenced too.

(And imo, Breyer's comments have been blown entirely out of proportion. I saw the interview. But that is NOT the topic of this thread.)

[Joe Hadenuf]

If we concede all social points to the DNC, what's left to fight for? Fiscal conservatism?

We could start by getting rid of our borders, and open up our markets to real, free global trade, and give other poor countries a chance to compete, like China and Mexico, who could really use a helping hand. And change our flag, to something more accepting to the world, something like a United Nations theme, while still keeping some independence if we choose.

[First Amendment]

I read the whole thread before I started replying, I was late (I never get on to FR usually until late evening when the generator is on!). But the amount of "conservatives" who hate Savage and the stupid comments were disturbing. It reminds me of the Stockholm syndrome - where the victims start identifying with their captors. People are so brainwashed by years of liberal/leftist/secular-humanist/moral-relativist/feminazi etc etc crap that their minds are distorted and they can't think straight.
One thing that helps me is I don't own a TV, (only maybe 1 year out of my entire adult life) and I watch about 2 movies a year. I don't allow my mind to get polluted by their lies.

[freebilly]

Go scr#w yourself. That's my free speech statement for the evening.

Now if Jim Robinson or the Admin Mods want to ban me for verbally attacking you, that's their right. It's their Forum, and I know what can get me banned.

Savage knew what could cost him his job and he chose to cross the line.

I am choosing to exercise my right to call you an ignorant moron. That is across the line on this Forum. If I get banned it's my own fault and has nothing to do with Free Republic caving in to PCism.

You ignorant moron.

[First Amendment]

Breyer's comments have been blown entirely out of proportion.

How so? I've read two articles about it, with extensive quotes of the discussion. How has it been blown out of proportion? Legal decisions from other countries were used as support for the Lawrence/Texas decision. That doesn't seem ominous to you?

And I don't see that it is irrelevant to this discussion. People here aren't just discussing whether Savage is a good talk show host or whether he should have been fired, or whether his type of speech is suitable for a retired ladies knitting party. The larger issue is whether unpopular speech is now or will be in the future pressured out of existence, one way or another. As has happened in Canada, Britain, and other coutnries that now the SCOTUS says it wants to take into consideration. That seems very relevant to me.

[Libertina]

Just a sign of not being able to back up your arguments. Probably means you're wrong. Don't try the debating club.

[Michael2001]

His comments may have been over the top but so what. I've heard liberals on TV say much worse. He improved the ratings for the time slot, but he got fired because people got offended.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Joe is a paleocon, and is being facetious.

Yes, it's true, I was a dinosaur right winger radical, but now I have realized those are ideals are dead. It's a new world, and if Republicans are going to adapt, they to will have to change and accept homosexuals and illegal aliens and others that may be different and hold different ideals. There is no other way.

[First Amendment]

And change our flag, to something more accepting to the world, something like a United Nations theme, while still keeping some independence if we choose.

Ah, I get it. And just like Breyer and O'Connor said yesterday, we should (or will) take other countries' laws and traditions into consideration, and make our laws cooperate with theirs, but no worry, we'll still have "a" constitution (of sorts).