Why I Am Siding With … Michael Savage?
Jul 22nd, 2009 | 32 responses
Those who have read my prior posts on Mr. Savage are aware that I am far from a fan of his program. I find him highly offensive, homophobic and racist. I think he is a jerk and if his radio show were to vanish from the planet tomorrow morning I would not mourn in the least.
However there are some things I like even less than Mr. Savage and one of those things is censorship in the name of political correctness. You may or may not have heard than he is currently banned from entering the United Kingdom solely because of his personal views.
I happen to agree with those who suggest his viewpoints and statements are offensive and disgusting, but that is not a reason to ban a person from entering the country. Let us imagine what would have happened if a Conservative government in the UK had banned someone like Keith Olbermann from entering the country ? Or if the Bush administration had banned someone like George Galloway from coming here ?
I don’t like the views (or personalities) of any of these people and have no desire to listen to them. But as many people have observed, popular speech does not need to be defended or protected, it is unpopular speech that requires it. The United Kingdom is supposed to be a free society and as such, this action is totally wrong.
32 Responses to “Why I Am Siding With … Michael Savage?”
Well, if I had a party and an uninvited person came over, started engaging in offensive and abusive behavior toward my guests, and in general trying to ruin the party, I'm pretty sure I'd throw him out and make sure he didn't come back. Of course the UK is a country and I am a private individual, so it isn't quite that simple, but I can certainly understand the sentiment. As for the Olbermann comparison, I see a bit of false equivalence there. When (for example) has Olbermann engaged in homophopic and racist behavior???
It never ceases to amaze me how anti-free expression most Liberals really are.
What ever happened to the concept, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?
Both the UK and Canada seem to have more legal restrictions on free speech than we do, something I never really understood given their overall image of tolerance. While I think the decision to ban Savage was legal in the UK, I don't understand how anyone embracing the first amendment can support it.
Well this move backfired badly, like when they banned Geert Wilders from showing his hate film against Islam. More people watched the movie after all of the publicity and I think because of this, more people will listen to Savage
No cliche, no matter how many times it's repeated, is 100% true all the time. There are exceptions to EVERYTHING. Anyone who would “defend to the death” (much less lift a little finger) Michael Savage's right to spread his “opinions”, is a fool. First amendment rights were established to protect a citizen's right to criticize the government, not to expose us all to any idiot on a street corner or from a radio studio who has something stupid to say. A profound misunderstanding of that “right” is what has led to the proliferation of blow-hards like Savage who have convinced millions of listeners that mere “opinion” somehow has the same value as “fact”. Too many people couldn't care less about whether a statement is true or not, as long as the statement makes them feel better about their own inadequacies and profound state of ignorance. If you're fond of cliches, try “Misery loves company”.
Again, another Liberal who thinks ideas he doesn't like should be suppressed. The 'Right' of free speech is meaningless if it is restricted to only 'approved' opinions.
Perhaps this is why this person is not welcome in the |UK and to make comparisons with the British MP George Galloway is laughable the Man is a Legend the only thing he said that the world turned on him for was that Iraq had NO weapons of mass destruction and now he has proved the world that he was right and none of the others were justified in attacking him And what he has achieved by getting aid past Egypt into The Gaza strip where the people are still under siege the man needs a Nobel Peace Prize
Savage called Arabs “non-humans” and “racist, fascist bigots”; asserted that Americans would like to “drop a nuclear weapon” on any Arab country; and that “these people” in the Middle East “need to be forcibly converted to Christianity” in order to “turn them into human beings.” Savage also claimed that, in the United States, “he also said that the San Francisco Chronicle has “become a pornography rag, anti-American and just nothing but around-the-clock stupidity, and written on the lowest possible level. Now it could be because of the large number of immigrants here, I don't really know.”
people would like George Bush to drop a nuclear weapon on an Arab country. They don't even care which one it would be. I can guarantee you . — I tell you right now — the largest percentage of Americans would like to see a nuclear weapon dropped on a major Arab capital. They don't even care which one. They'd like an indiscriminate use of a nuclear weapon. One thing people cannot live with, which is an undefined, limitless conflict, want it ended like the war against Japan. They'd like Big Boy dropped on one of the little cities over there. They don't care where don't care any more. .
In fact, Christianity has been one of the great salivations on planet Earth. It's what's necessary in the Middle East. Others have written about it, I think these people need to be forcibly converted to Christianity It's the only thing that can turn them into human beings.
the U.S. Army gave to the Cherokee Indians on their long march to the West, was nothing compared to what I'd like to see done to these people, just so you understand that I'm not going to be too intellectual about my analysis here in terms of what I would recommend, what Doc Savage recommends as an antidote to this kind of poison coming out of the Middle East from these non-humans.
Take a look at what they've done to the Jewish people in Israel. The lies they've spew about Israel. A little country [Israel] surrounded by racist, fascist bigots who don't want anyone but themselves living in that hell hole called the Middle East.
:
the mosques have been filling up, young Muslims are beating up and killing people and of course you don't read about that You can never hear about the bad things they do. It's hush-hush but if a Timothy McVeigh should come along, then it gets front page coverage. Because the story line goes that white male, Christian, heterosexuals are evil and all of the others are — are — are victims and only getting their just rewards by fighting back.
The San Francisco Chronicle where I live. It was once good newspaper when I moved here in '74. It's [the San Francisco Chronicle] become a pornography rag, anti-American and just nothing but around-the-clock stupidity, and written on the lowest possible level. Now it could be because of the large number of immigrants here, I don't really know. Maybe they figure if they keep it simple, the storyline — I don't know
I'm not advocating the suppression of anyone's free speech. I'm merely suggesting that we should all make a greater effort to actually learn something when we turn on a radio or log onto a web site, rather than merely having our personal hates or prejudices reinforced by someone else. Michael Savage's “opinions” serve no useful purpose other than his own.
I'm with Austin Roth on this: “The 'Right' of free speech is meaningless if it is restricted to only 'approved' opinions.” Though it's not just liberals who want to shut up the other side.
When I drive around late at night I sometimes hear Savage screaming–bitterly–at some sad little fool who is trying like hell to agree with him.
Michael Savage is a popular conservative radio entertainer: There goes your modern-day conservatism.
Let him bray.
Some interesting conversation from both sides of the fence.
As I've said in the post, I have no love for Mr. Savage but to punish someone for their opinions, even if those opinions are disgusting, is wrong, pure and simple.
michaelwade -
No cliche, no matter how many times it's repeated, is 100% true all the time. There are exceptions to EVERYTHING. Anyone who would “defend to the death” (much less lift a little finger) Michael Savage's right to spread his “opinions”, is a fool. First amendment rights were established to protect a citizen's right to criticize the government, not to expose us all to any idiot on a street corner or from a radio studio who has something stupid to say.
That sure sounds like a call to suppress speech to me.
Anyway, inside ourselves most of us at times wish would could shut some bloviating idiot up, regardless of party affiliation. I for one never listen to Savage (or Rush, for that matter), and find much of what they say venal, to say the least. I can say the same for many, many Liberal/Left commentators as well. But I do indeed defend their Right to make asses of themselves, to use hateful language, to say politically incorrect things, because the alternative is so much worse.
Wow, a lot of commentors here have no idea what the freedom of speech is all about. I think some of you need to go back to grade school and learn the bill of rights, maybe touch up on the constitution a little bit.
Savage is an a$$, but he has the legal right to express his opinions.
What people don't understand is that the right to free speech cuts both ways. You have the right to express your opinions. Meaning you have a right to expose to the country that you are a massive ahole. Savage's free speech exposes him for what he really is…that is what is so great about free speech.
Though my comments may have sounded like a call for suppression of free speech, my purpose was to point out the hyperbole of the statement “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. It's hyperbole because the statement is clearly an exaggeration of what's probably true in this case. I can understand a person saying that he would fight to “the death” to defend this country if it were being attacked ( as in World War Two, for example), but implying that you would actually give up your life to defend Michael Savage's right to rant just doesn't seem believable to me. Sorry.
michael -
Last comment.
That is because you still fail to see the real point. You cannot pick and choose who's right to free speech you will defend and who's you will not. You either believe in and defend free speech as a basic right, for good and bad, or you advocate censorship.
And I do not believe your defense, to be frank. I believe you started to realize what you were saying, and are now trying to cover your tracks. If you are going to attack all metaphors, then why believe in anything.
“Give me Liberty or Give me Death”. Most people believe in the concept, very few will actually die for it. Does that invalidate the concept?
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden,
meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty.”
“I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.”
Again, great concepts, but literal?
Last comment. Not attacking all metaphors….just that one.
In case no one has noticed, this country has an enormous list who are not allowed to fly. Not a speech ban, but a travel ban. In the EU no one from the govt of Zimbabwe is allowed, most places refuse travel visas to Nazi groups. In the USA, foreign members of various groups are banned, individual members of which may or may not be provocateurs, let alone terrorists. The UN will impose a travel ban on everyone from N. Korea.
Our right to free speech applies only to American citizens, and only in America. We can, and do, keep out people for a vast array of reasons, some reasonable, some not. The USA, with a substantial population of African Americans and Hispanics, is under ZERO obligation to allow travel to the US by anyone who advocates violence against these minorities, or ideed, any American. We need not allow anyone to come exercise “free speech” that advocates violence or hate of an kind.
Get it? “Free speech” guarantees do not extend to foreign nationals here, nor does it or should it extend to foreign governments with respect to Americans seeking travel visas.
Do you guys stay up nights to dream stuff up to get outraged about?
Do you guys stay up nights to dream stuff up to get outraged about?
Why yes, as a matter of fact that is exactly what I use my evenings for. I find it relaxing.
That, and following Glenn Reynold's recipe for a yummy puppy smoothie!
Just don't try it with the badly photoshopped Jack Russell terrier. They're not that cute and hence would make an awful smoothie. Try Pomeranian and pomegranate. Delicious and loaded with antioxidants.
Mr. GreenDreams:
Thank you for your input. I couldn't have said it better.
Michael Wade
while I personally dislike Savage and think the UK has the right to do what they want, it ain't my country, this action has lowered my opinion of the “freedom” of the UK. First Ireland then the big brother, 1984 ish cameras on every corner, now this. I truly don't believe that the UK is as “Free” as we are.
Maybe EEllis, but UK has more Islamic immigrants than us. They don't need to invite trouble by letting a <expletive deleted> someone come and stir up racial hatred there. Why should they? It's like inviting a “guest” to your home who insults your relatives and calls you an idiot for putting up with them. Who needs a guest like that? Savage (aka Michael Weiner – I know him) has set himself up as a loudmouthed troublemaker. Here's the British statement, with which I happen to agree: “”This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country,” The rest of the list of 16 is here. Let me know if you personally would invite any of them into your home: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/1…
Frankly as I've suggested, I don't think our country would be any more accommodating. For example:
The Clinton administration has denied a visa to Cuban National Assembly
President Ricardo Alarcón to travel to the United States for an international
parliamentary conference
Although the United States has continued to grant the visas, it does sometimes refuse entry to Iranian government officials and professionals.
US immigration authorities have rejected a bid by alleged Nazi guard John Demjanjuk to keep his American visa.
Troubled British singer Amy Winehouse’s plans for a massive American comeback gig were shattered Sunday night after she was denied a US work visa.
Haaretz’s Akiva Eldar brings the bracing news that the Obama administration is contemplating denying U.S. visas to any Israeli politicians who were members of Kahane Chai. The party is designated by both the U.S. and Israel as a terrorist organization. The most prominent individual affected would be Avigdor Lieberman who, Haaretz claims, was a party member briefly after he arrived from his native Moldova:
“My Name Is Khan” stars Shah Rukh Khan and Kajol and is currently being shot in Los Angeles. The six team members who were denied a visa also included SRK’s personal staff and others from the production team reported Mid Day.
Airyn Bell, wife of radio talk show legend Art Bell, has been denied a U.S. Visa.
Claiming that Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi is planning to apply for the US visa to attend the World Gujarati Conference in New Jersey in August, as many as 25 Indian American organisations urged the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that he should not be allowed to enter the country under any circumstances.
Mr: GreenDreams:
Once again, an impressive display of good research to make an important point! As a country, we are not restricting our own citizens' free speech, but simply letting people from outside our borders know that the right to come here is a privilege, and the things that one may say or do can determine whether that privilege is granted (the obnoxious party guest analogy from JSpencer's comment earlier is perfect). Great Britain apparently has a similar philosophy, and I, for one, am going to be disappointed if they relent and decide to let Mr. Savage in.
Celebritylife.org tracking back – Why I Am Siding With…. Michael Savage ??…
Celebritylife.org tracking back – Why I Am Siding With…. Michael Savage ??…
GD you are either purposely misleading people or just don't know what you are talking about.
Airyn Bell was denied a visa because of a paperwork snafu which has already been rectified.
Narendra Modi was previously denied entrance to the United States due to his role in riots that overtook the Indian state of Gujarat from February to May 2002 in which 2,000 Muslims were killed, thousands raped, and over 200,000 displaced. Numerous reports, including reports of official bodies of the Government of India, have documented the role of Modi's state government in the planning and execution of the violence, and the failure to hold perpetrators accountable.
Aamir Bashir Khan was supposed to star with Shahrukh Khan but couldn't because his passport was on hold. Meaning it wasn't a US visa problem and he wasn't rejected for any free speech issues.He was one of those 6. If his was his own fault I sorry the idea that the US is “banning” any of those is without reasonable merit.
Members of terrorist organizations? You think a radio loudmouth should be equated with terrorists?
Amy Winehouse – are you referring to the visa she was denied right after being charged with assault in the UK or the one she applied for while she was in lockdown rehab? BS example if you ask me because why wouldn't we want violent drug addicts to visit.
John Demjanjuk – the nazi prison guard who was deported? Are you kidding me?
Cuban and Iranian officials? What are you smoking?
Well hells bells, all I said is that if he comes to a party at my house I'll throw his sorry ass out. If someone else want's to listen to his raving, be my guest. As for freedom of speech, such as it is in the 21st century (think republican accepted so-called “free speech zones”) my position on it is based on the law. As we all know, yelling fire in a crowded theatre isn't appropriate, which to my mind isn't so terribly far from a foaming at the mouth nut like Savage spewing his hateful blather into a crowd of gullible, reactionary morons. Maybe the UK just has a little more common sense in this area… sort of like America used to.
JS – why 'sorry AR'? What is partisan about any of my posts about this subject?
All I ever did is defend the concept of free speech. I made a point of saying I never listen to Savage or Rush. I have said many times before I find commentators like them bloviating idiots.
Equating the talk of a Savage or a Rush to yelling fire in a crowded theater IS partisan, though, as it would be to say the same for an Olbermann or a Randi Rhodes. I don't listen to them either, but have no objection to their right to say whatever stupid things they want.
As for America having had more common sense in the past about free speech, are you referring to the days of party-run newspapers and their political smear campaigns every election, or to Sedition laws?
What is partisan about any of my posts about this subject? ~ AR
Did you forget your own comment from earlier? Here it is again:
It never ceases to amaze me how anti-free expression most Liberals really are. ~ AR
OK, that was a partisan snark.
Michael Savage is 100% correct about everything. The truth is offensive to you people.
ks, dropped on head and loving it.
Thank you for not being a Kool Aid drinker and for seeing the issue where for what is it, this is censorship and unjust at that… Thank you for proving there are still people on the left that have some brains and not the typical leftist rhetoric.